BURSTMPs to debate the release of documents relating to the appointment of ex-prince Andrew as UK trade envoy
Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has been giving interviews this morning. On the Today programme, he explained why the Lib Dem motion goes back to when Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was appointed a trade envoy, in 2001. But Davey faced embarrassment when Nick Robinson, the presenter, read out extracts from a speech that Davey gave in 2011, when he was a trade minister in the coalition government and he was responding to a debate tabled by the late Labour MP Paul Flynn.
Flynn, a republican, used the debate to criticise the fact that, under parliamentary rules, he could not say anything critical of Prince Andrew, as he was at the time. Davey was replying on behalf of the government and, as Robinson reminded him, he said that Andrew had been a success in the role.
I, for one, believe that the Duke of York does an excellent job as the UK’s special representative for international trade and investment …. During [his time as trade envoy] he has been a long-standing success in the role, representing a continued interest on the part of the royal family in supporting British business and international trade and investment … Many who have worked with the duke have found that he is a real asset for our country in supporting UK business.
Can I apologise to all those victims of [Jeffrey] Epstein who may have read those words and been upset by them. I really regret them.
Well, I didn’t know what we now know back then.
And it’s interesting to note that the prime minister [David Cameron] at the time got rid of, or ensured that Prince Andrew stood down from the role, two months later. So clearly someone in government did know that there were huge problems with the way he was conducting his role.
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.
We’re in favour of the principle of there being transparency around this. We think that’s important. Of course, the public have a right to see material that is relevant.
We will look at what the Lib Dems have set out [and we] will address the position later on in parliament when we come to that debate.
But we do just need to be careful here because, as in the Peter Mandelson case, we have got a live police investigation here and none of us would want to do anything that would jeopardise it.
Continue reading...