Chris Bryant MP: speeches

Speeches

• 12 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for standing up for the business in her constituency, and she is absolutely right. The Trade Remedies Authority is investigating, as she knows, and I urge industry to participate in that, although I cannot comment on the precise details of the investigation because it might eventually come to my desk. Importantly, we need to make sure that dumping is not acceptable, because it makes it impossible for British businesses to prosper. We will do everything in our power to make sure that we use the remedies available to us to protect British businesses.

• 12 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I commend him for supporting his constituents. Equally importantly, there are many Scottish products in respect of which we need to ensure that British businesses can take the opportunities the India FTA affords, and build on those so that we can build strong British businesses. We also have geographical identification for Scotch whisky in Argentina. We need to build on these gains around the world.

• 12 Mar 2026 · Scottish Industry: International Promotion · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he has done to make sure that the UK Government have delivered in his constituency. I am glad that he has raised the Lanarkshire AI growth zone, because it is really important in trying to make sure that the industries of the future are at the heart of the jobs of the future in Scotland. I look forward to the SNP welcoming this in the next few moments.

• 12 Mar 2026 · Scottish Industry: International Promotion · Hansard source

  More

  Promoting Scottish industry overseas is one of our prime objectives. Whether it is opening up new markets such as India for Scotch whisky, securing new beef opportunities in the United States of America, securing contracts for Scottish steel in new bridges in Ukraine, or promoting financial services around the world, we are on the case. I have even seen Tunnock’s Caramels in LuLu in Doha.

• 12 Mar 2026 · Scottish Industry: International Promotion · Hansard source

  More

  It is like an open goal, isn’t it, Mr Speaker? Sorry—you do not have a view. I believe that we achieve far more by our common endeavour than by going it alone. That is why I am a passionate supporter of the Union. Of course there are specific things about the Scottish economy that we want to drive forward. For instance, 54% of Scottish exports go into the European Union. [ Official Report , 13 May 2026; Vol. 786, c. 1WC.] (Correction) If we manage to secure the sanitary and phytosanitary deal that we are trying to negotiate with the EU at the moment, that will pay enormous dividends to Scotland that it would never secure were it entirely on its own. Separatism never works.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

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

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  Very humble.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  indicated dissent.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  Oh, all right.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  I heard that.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  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.