Burnham Rejects Epstein Inquiry as Pressure Mounts in 2026

Key Points

• Andy Burnham is not actively considering a public inquiry into Jeffrey Epstein’s UK activities, according to the Ministry of Justice.
• Victims minister Alex Davies-Jones said the Government was “looking into this” and reviewing what is possible.
• The Prime Minister is committed to meeting Epstein survivors, but a public inquiry is not currently on the table.
• Ms Davies-Jones also indicated ministers were considering an inquiry into the alleged sexual misconduct of former Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed.
• More than 400 allegations have been made against Al Fayed, covering abuse claims from 1977 to 2014.
• The Metropolitan Police are investigating at least 156 victims who contacted them directly.
• Epstein survivor Lisa Phillips said she hoped any meeting would begin “a new chapter” for survivors.
• Labour campaigners have reportedly urged an “impunity” inquiry into Epstein, Al Fayed and allegations involving West Ham co-owner David Sullivan.
• The issue is intensifying pressure on ministers to clarify what form of accountability, if any, will follow.
• The Government says it is reviewing all available options to support victims and survivors.

Greater Manchester (Britain Today News) August 05, 2026 – Andy Burnham is not actively considering a public inquiry into Jeffrey Epstein’s UK activities despite fresh speculation that ministers were examining the possibility, as pressure grows on the Government to explain how it intends to respond to allegations involving Epstein, Mohamed Al Fayed and wider claims of institutional failure.

What has the Government said?

As reported by the Ministry of Justice, the position from ministers is that a public inquiry into Epstein is “not being actively considered”. That statement came after victims minister Alex Davies-Jones suggested on Tuesday night that an inquiry was among the options being reviewed.

The contrasting messages have created a political muddle around one of the most sensitive questions now facing ministers: whether the state should launch a formal inquiry into historic abuse allegations linked to powerful men and the institutions around them. The current line from the MoJ is that the Government is looking at what is possible, but has not committed itself to a public inquiry.

Why is Andy Burnham being drawn into the issue?

The discussion has become politically significant because Andy Burnham, as Greater Manchester mayor and a senior Labour figure, is being linked to calls for a wider response from the party and from ministers. The debate is no longer only about Epstein’s conduct, but about whether the state failed victims by not acting sooner and whether lessons have truly been learned.

According to the Government’s current position, Burnham is not actively weighing up a public inquiry. That does not mean the issue has gone away; rather, it means there is no formal move underway at present. The statement leaves open the possibility that further discussions could still take place, but the immediate answer from the MoJ is clear.

What did Alex Davies-Jones say?

Ms Davies-Jones said ministers were reviewing “what is possible” and that the Prime Minister had agreed to meet Epstein’s victims. She also said the Government was taking the issue “very seriously”.

In her words:

“We are looking into this, we are reviewing what is possible… same with Harrods survivors. We already have a now statutory inquiry under way for the grooming gangs victims. I have been assured that the Prime Minister is taking this very seriously. He will meet with those victims, and he is looking at what is possible, now he has access to all of the information as Prime Minister to see… what action we can take.”

That language signalled openness to further action, but it stopped short of announcing any inquiry. Her comments also linked the Epstein question to the situation facing survivors of alleged abuse connected to Harrods, suggesting ministers are treating these cases as part of a broader debate on accountability.

What is the Ministry of Justice position?

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson later set out the Government’s formal position. The spokesperson said:

“Our thoughts are firmly with the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, who have survived devastating trauma.

“As Minister Davies-Jones said, we are reviewing what is possible and will look at all options to support victims and survivors.

“The Prime Minister is committed to meeting with victims, but a public inquiry is not being actively considered.”

That statement narrowed the scope of speculation. It confirms sympathy for survivors, a willingness to examine support options, and a commitment by the Prime Minister to meet victims. But it also makes clear that no public inquiry is currently in motion.

What are survivors asking for?

Survivors are seeking recognition, accountability and structural change, not simply symbolic gestures. Lisa Phillips, an Epstein survivor, told the BBC she hoped a meeting with Mr Burnham would mark

“the beginning of a new chapter, one where survivors are heard, lessons are learned, institutions are held accountable where appropriate, and lasting reforms help protect future generations”.

Her comments reflect a wider demand from survivors’ groups: that any official response must go beyond private meetings or general statements of concern. For many affected people, the central question is whether institutions were negligent, complicit or slow to act, and whether the Government is prepared to examine those failures properly.

Why is Mohamed Al Fayed part of the debate?

The same ministers who are being pressed on Epstein are also being asked about alleged sexual misconduct by former Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed. According to the information released, more than 400 allegations have been made against Al Fayed, spanning the period from 1977 to 2014.

The claims include sexual assault, rape, sexual exploitation and human trafficking. The scale and duration of the allegations have made the case one of the most serious and disturbing abuse scandals associated with a public figure in recent years. Ministers’ mention of Al Fayed alongside Epstein suggests that the Government is considering whether different cases of alleged abuse should be addressed together or separately.

What is the scale of the Al Fayed allegations?

The allegations against Al Fayed are substantial both in number and in range. More than 400 claims have been made, and they cover a period stretching across several decades. That breadth matters because it points not only to alleged individual wrongdoing, but also to possible systemic failures by organisations connected to him.

The Metropolitan Police are investigating at least 156 victims who contacted them directly. Of those, 21 came forward before Al Fayed died in 2023 at the age of 94. That detail indicates that some people were seeking help before his death, yet the allegations have continued to surface, adding urgency to questions around safeguarding, disclosure and institutional response.

What do the police investigation figures show?

The Met’s investigation numbers underline how large and complex the matter has become. At least 156 victims have contacted police directly, which suggests a wide pattern of allegations rather than isolated claims. The fact that 21 people came forward before Al Fayed’s death also shows that concerns were being raised while he was still alive.

This matters politically because it strengthens the argument from those calling for independent scrutiny. Where allegations span years and involve large numbers of people, campaigners typically argue that a public inquiry can help identify failings in policing, business oversight and government action. Ministers, however, must weigh that against the limits of public inquiries, the potential cost, and whether existing investigations are already dealing with the relevant facts.

Why are ministers being criticised?

Critics are likely to focus on the apparent gap between the Government’s words and its actions. On the one hand, ministers say they are looking at what is possible and are committed to meeting victims. On the other, the MoJ says a public inquiry is not being actively considered.

That distinction may sound procedural, but politically it is significant. Victims’ groups and campaigners often interpret such language as hesitation, especially in cases involving high-profile figures and entrenched institutions. The concern is that without a formal inquiry, the full extent of failures may never be properly exposed in public.

What role does Parliament play now?

Parliament is likely to remain central to the debate because the issue involves government accountability, victim support and the potential use of public inquiry powers. Ministers may face further questions about whether existing processes are enough or whether only a statutory inquiry can deliver answers that survivors trust.

The fact that a statutory inquiry is already under way into grooming gangs victims may also shape the discussion. Some ministers could argue that this shows the Government is willing to act where needed. Others may say the same principle should apply to Epstein, Al Fayed and any other related abuse scandals if survivors and campaigners believe there has been a cover-up or deep institutional failure.

How does David Sullivan fit into the wider controversy?

The BBC report referenced leading Labour campaigners on violence against women and girls sending Mr Burnham a document calling for an “impunity” inquiry. That document reportedly covers the UK activities of Epstein, the alleged behaviour of Al Fayed and allegations of sexual misconduct against West Ham co-owner David Sullivan.

Mr Sullivan was accused of sexually exploitative and predatory behaviour by seven women during a joint investigation by BBC Panorama and The Times into the 77-year-old businessman. He stood down as joint chairman of West Ham shortly before the investigation was broadcast in June, and he said he wanted to focus on fighting what he described as

“factually incorrect and entirely false, decades-old allegations concerning my personal life”.

The inclusion of Sullivan shows that the issue is no longer confined to one individual. Instead, campaigners are framing it as a wider pattern of alleged abuse, power and impunity involving wealthy and influential men.

What did Burnham say or do?

The material available does not provide a direct quote from Burnham himself on the inquiry question. What is clear is that the Government’s position, as relayed by the MoJ, is that he is not actively considering a public inquiry into Epstein’s UK activities at this stage.

That leaves Burnham in a politically delicate position. As a senior Labour figure, he may be expected to show sympathy with survivors while also avoiding commitments the Government is not ready to make. His next move will matter because survivors and campaigners will be looking to see whether political leaders are prepared to convert concern into action.

Could a public inquiry still happen?

Yes, but the current position suggests it is not imminent. The Government has said it is reviewing what is possible and will look at all options to support victims and survivors. That keeps the door open, but it does not amount to a decision to launch one.

For survivors, that may feel like an incomplete answer. For ministers, it allows time to consider whether an inquiry would add value beyond existing policing work, any statutory inquiry already underway elsewhere, and direct meetings with victims. The challenge is that delay can be read as avoidance, especially in cases where the public expects accountability.
Explore More about Politics:
Energy Minister Michael Shanks Accused Over Grid Safety Claims
Westminster: Government to Function as Normal While Burnham Holidays

What happens next?

The immediate next step appears to be a meeting between the Prime Minister and victims, alongside continued ministerial review of what formal action is possible. The Government will also have to clarify whether the Epstein case and the Al Fayed allegations are being treated separately or as part of a wider review of abuse and institutional failure.

Whatever comes next, the political pressure is unlikely to fade. Survivors want more than expressions of sympathy, campaigners want a route to accountability, and ministers now face the task of explaining why a public inquiry is not being actively considered even as they insist they are taking the issue seriously.

What is the broader significance of this case?

The significance goes beyond one inquiry or one allegation. The story raises questions about how governments respond when abuse claims involve wealthy, connected or dead figures, and whether the justice system is capable of giving survivors confidence after years of silence or delay.

It also puts a spotlight on language. Saying ministers are “looking into” something can suggest momentum, while saying an inquiry is not “being actively considered” suggests caution. Those differences matter because survivors, campaigners and the public will judge the Government not only by what it says, but by what it ultimately does.