Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. You will have to forgive me for dancing around to aid my pained back.

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

That quote from 1887 is of the British historian Lord Acton, and its explains how power in its most essential form inevitably corrupts. Today we are discussing how that absolute power, that feeling of invincibility, has led to the behaviour that Members across the Chamber are all so utterly disgusted by.

I speak on behalf of all residents who have been in touch with me over the last few weeks, whether they are a republican, a monarchist or ambivalent to the general principle. We see a scandal that is not just engulfing Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, but dragging in the integrity of the wider royal family. As was said correctly by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), we must ask who knew what and when. What was known about the £12 million that was paid out to Virginia Giuffre in 2022, and how was that allowed to be used to settle a civil suit concerning allegations of Andrew’s alleged offences? How was that allowed to happen in the first place?

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) has said, we have seen one friend of Epstein lobbying for a job for another friend of Epstein, and a 12-year relationship that benefited them both financially, which has resulted in two arrests for misconduct in public office. This Humble Address refers to how that began, and it is absolutely the right place to start. As a politician, trying to convince the public that we are here to serve and represent them, that the conspiracies they read in the darker reaches of the internet are nonsense, and that there is no elite paedophile ring that runs the world’s institutions becomes increasingly difficult when we see links in the files that go directly from the Kremlin to the White House and everywhere in between, including the British royal family.

We talk about standards in public life and integrity, but that is difficult to maintain if such things are known about and the information in the files is understood by the public but we are then unable to scrutinise it or to bring people to this place to ask questions about what has happened. As discussed, the Humble Address covers quite a narrow set of papers about Andrew’s appointment as the special representative for UK trade and industry. However, we have also discussed the parliamentary gymnastics required to get a discussion in the Chamber about the outrageous misdeeds allegedly conducted by that man. We have to call out those parliamentary gymnastics as an outrageous impediment to our performing our job as MPs and we need to dispel them from this place entirely.

We have talked about the implications of Andrew’s position in the line of succession. When the photos of him walking in New York with Jeffrey Epstein were taken in 2011, he was fourth in line to the throne. When that scandal was occurring, he was very close to the throne—it is disgusting. Will the Minister give us an update on legislation that the Government might bring forward to remove Andrew from the line of succession? Andrew is eighth in line now, meaning his position may not be such a worry, but the principle of his being in the line of succession to become our Head of State is obnoxious in the extreme, so I would like to hear an update from the Minister about that.

[Layla Moran]

People understand that we have a living, breathing, constitutional democracy that grows as society better understands things. If the King does not want Andrew to be a prince, it makes no sense that we still have to bring in legislation to strip him of his dukedom and his earldoms, or that he remains in the line of succession and could potentially be King. There are plenty of other things that we need to be getting on with, but there is a certain logic in this instance that just needs tidying up, if nothing else.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Maguire]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that powerful point. That is a really important consideration; I hope that the Minister listened and can respond to it.

These concerns naturally lead to further questions. What did those around Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor know? What did police protection officers, civil servants and officials who accompanied him, travelled with him and were present during official duties observe? What did they record? What did they raise? Crucially, what was dismissed and what was ignored? These are not trivial matters; they speak directly to how an individual in public office was able to behave in ways that would never be tolerated from anyone else and how the institutions around him seemingly completely failed to act.

[Luke Taylor]

Does the point about what the protection officers knew not show the outrageous power imbalance between a royal and an employee? We are talking about whistleblowing and reporting what has been seen. Is the prospect of having somebody in that situation—whereby they are being held to account for not calling out the behaviour of someone whose privilege and birthright have put them into such a position—not outrageous? Does my hon. Friend agree that this shows how the structure of our constitution has put us into such an outrageous twist and how difficult it will be to unwind that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart]

I wholly agree with my hon. Friend, who has made a number of powerful interventions throughout this debate. This whole sorry saga repeatedly brings up arrogant, greedy men—mostly men—who have sought to enrich themselves further and increase their power.

[Luke Taylor]

I hope this intervention adds to my hon. Friend’s point. Does she find it ironic that the only person who has been imprisoned as part of the Epstein scandal is a woman?

[Lisa Smart]

My hon. Friend is not the only person to refer to structural sexism in this debate. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) made an extremely powerful speech about how, should we choose to do so as a Parliament, we could embed looking at sexism—at violence against women and girls—in our policymaking and our thinking in a way that would benefit the whole of society. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for raising the point that there remain many people who the hand of justice is yet to seek out with the full vigour it should.

We should be pulling back the curtain on Andrew’s use of the special envoy role and the whole system around him, on the power he had in an official, state-sanctioned position, and on the many missed opportunities for scrutiny and accountability, not least in this place. A number of Members from both sides of the House have talked about the importance of pace and speed; the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) made a very good point about making sure we get on with some of this work, which he also raised yesterday with the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister; and the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), reminded us that the wheels of justice often grind slowly. My deputy leader and hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) presented some practical solutions for how we can make sure progress continues at pace, so that one thing does not hold up another, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), reminded us that police involvement in this matter should not unduly delay the whole process. Of course, it is vital that the police should be free to do their job and do it well, but that should not unduly hold up the release of the information we are seeking.

We Liberal Democrats very much welcome support from across the Chamber for our motion, including from Members on the Treasury Bench. When the Minister winds up in a few moments, I would be grateful if he confirmed—like when the Government responded to the previous Humble Address that we discussed in this place—that any information will be released when it is available, only holding back that information that is directly relevant to a police investigation.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Luke Taylor]

rose—

[Layla Moran]

rose—

[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.