Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor hit with another blow as MPs will release files
Following a parliamentary debate on Tuesday in the House of Commons, the government said it is unable to release material to the public that police will need for their ongoing investigations into Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor until they are “satisfied.”
The leader of the Liberal Democrats, Sir Ed Davey, introduced a motion calling for greater transparency regarding records related to the former royal’s tenure as a trade envoy.
Files may be released in stages once investigators confirm they no longer require access.
This approach is common in police investigations, balancing public transparency with evidential integrity.
The former royal served as a UK trade representative between 2001 and 2011, promoting British commercial interests overseas.
Allegations mentioned in media and political commentary — including claims of sharing sensitive information with Jeffrey Epstein — have not resulted in publicly confirmed criminal charges, which aims to reassure the audience about the current legal status.
The description of the individual as “rude, arrogant and entitled” appears to reflect opinion or political commentary rather than formal legal or investigative findings, helping the audience differentiate between speculation and verified information.
Trade minister Sir Chris Bryant said Andrew is “a man on a constant self-aggrandising and self-enriching hustle” who is “a rude, arrogant and entitled man who could not distinguish between the public interest, which he said he served, and his own private interest”.
On Tuesday, Sir Chris said, “Let me be clear from the outset, we support this motion today.
“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, 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 who participated in the abuse. It’s the many, many more who turned a blind eye out of greed, familiarity or deference.
“As the police have rightly said, it is absolutely crucial that the integrity of their investigation is protected, and now these proceedings are under way, 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 inquiries, unless and until the police are satisfied.”
Sir Chris said he wants to “manage people’s expectations” as to how quickly the papers on Andrew will be released.
He said: “It’s worth bearing in mind that the documents that might be envisaged in this are mostly 25 years old. Some of them are a bit earlier. They may be substantial in number, and many of them will be in hard copy.”
Sir Ed Davey said: “Can there be many people more symbolic of the rot that eats away at the British establishment than the former duke of York and special trade envoy, and the former business secretary, first secretary of state and ambassador to the United States?
“Their association with Epstein and their actions on his behalf, while trusted with the privilege of public office, are a stain on our country. We must begin to clean away that stain with the disinfectant of transparency.”
Alex Burghart, the Conservative shadow Cabinet Office minister, said: “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 release this information.
Prime Minister’s spokesman said: “We are in favour of the principle of transparency. We can’t publish material that would jeopardise a police investigation, as you know, so that is the balancing exercise.”
