The Cabinet Office has been accused of covering up for the royal family after it emerged that official papers which refer to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have been withheld from the National Archives.
The annual release of government papers to the archives in Kew, southwest London, under the 20-year rule includes a No 10 file from 2004 and 2005 on royal visits.
The version, originally made available to journalists under embargo so they could prepare stories in advance, included minutes of a meeting where officials discussed the travel plans of various royals – including the Duke of York as he was then.
However, the minutes were subsequently redacted from the file before it was made available to the public.
The annual release of government papers to the archives also revealed:
- MI5 blocked an appeal by Irish prime minister Bertie Ahern for the UK to share intelligence on any terrorist threat to the Sellafield nuclear facility
- Peter Mandelson warned Tony Blair not to allow Gordon Brown’s supporters to wreck Labour’s 2005 general election campaign from within
- Plans were drawn up under Mr Blair for a major redevelopment of Downing Street, including plans for an underground “safe-haven” area in the event of a terrorist attack
- Downing Street refused to release details of a conversation between Mr Blair and French president Jacques Chirac following the death in Paris of Diana, Princess of Wales
- No 10 had to issue a grovelling apology after prime minister John Major’s birthday telegram to the Queen Mother was addressed in an “improper manner”
The Cabinet Office, which is responsible for transferring the files to the National Archives, blamed an “administrative error” as they had never been intended for release.
A spokesperson said: “All records are managed in line with the requirements of the Public Records Act. Any release is subject to an extensive review process, including engaging expert stakeholders.”
However, Graham Smith, chief executive of anti-monarchy campaign group Republic, said there was no justification for withholding the documents, especially since Andrew has been stripped of his royal status amid continuing controversy over his links with the paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.
“There should be no royal exemption at all. But this exemption surely doesn’t apply to Andrew now he’s no longer a royal,” Mr Smith said.
“The most likely reason for this attempt to stop disclosure is pressure from the palace. The royals have sought to keep everything under wraps when it comes to Andrew, not to protect him but to protect themselves.
“The royals are one of the most secretive institutions in the UK. These documents should be released without fear or favour, to allow the public to make informed judgements about the royals.”
Meanwhile, Labour MP for York Central Rachael Maskell urged the government to provide clarity on why the files were not published.
She told The Independent: “The government should say why papers have been withheld if this is the case. All the public want is transparency, if there are issues which could highlight the risk to others, then clearly this information should be reported to the appropriate authority.
“There are a lot of questions which are being asked in the light of the release of the Epstein papers, for which we know young women were trafficked. I make no assertion, just call for clarity.”
Mr Mountbatten-Windsor, who has always denied any wrongdoing, was earlier this month formally stripped of his last remaining royal titles following controversy over his links to Epstein, with King Charles ordering that his membership of the Order of the Garter, to which he was appointed in 2006, be removed.
It came one month after the 65-year-old was stripped of both his HRH style and his prince title.
Mr Mountbatten-Windsor’s role in the family came to an end over growing concerns about his association with Epstein. After the palace announced that he would lose all his royal titles, it also said he would leave his Royal Lodge residence.
The minutes, which were seen by journalists, including the Press Association, before they were pulled from the file would appear to be unexceptionable.
There is discussion by senior palace and Foreign Office officials about his travel plans as a UK trade envoy – which earned him the nickname “air miles Andy” – with visits to China, Russia, southeast Asia and Spain.
Officials also raised the issue of whether the Football Association would be prepared to pay for him to attend the Euro 2004 tournament in Portugal as a royal representative.
It was noted that a change to the rules for royal travel meant that his visits as a trade envoy would in future be funded by the Royal Travel Office – rather than UK Trade and Industry – which would have to find an additional £90,000.
Elsewhere, the minutes show that a bid for Prince William (now the Prince of Wales) to visit China was turned down, on the grounds that he should not undertake official duties until he was at least 25.
The retention of the minutes underlines the way that files relating to the royal family are routinely withheld from release under the Public Records Act.
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source www.independent.co.uk ’
