MPs to debate the release of documents relating to the appointment of ex-prince Andrew as UK trade envoy
Good morning. Spare a thought for Cabinet Office officials. They are already embarked on a massive exercise to collate, and vet, thousands of documents relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the US, and his communications with government while he was in the job. That is so they can be published to comply with a humble address passed by MPs. Now it seems they are going to have to do a similar exercise for the paperwork relating to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s appointment as a trade envoy in 2001.
The Liberal Democrats have an opposition day in parliament, meaning they can choose the motion for debate, and they have tabled their own humble address. it says:
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...Source: Guardian - World News
