The debate, called by the Liberal Democrats to demand the release of documents relating to Andrew’s 2001 appointment as UK trade envoy, took in privilege, deference, and holding power to account.
The talk was of building a culture of accountability and transparency.
MPs questioned Andrew’s appointment and what oversight existed during his decade-long tenure, and if lessons had been learned following allegations he shared sensitive information with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
MPs went on to back the motion calling for the release of documents.
Andrew has not responded to the BBC’s requests for comment on specific allegations that have emerged after the US release of files in January related to Epstein. He has previously denied any wrongdoing in relation to the late financier.
The fact that this debate happened at all is in itself significant. It reflects the heat of the Andrew story and how conventions are shifting with the public mood.
Buckingham Palace will not be getting involved in the details of what we heard today, but their position remains the same. Their focus is on supporting the police investigation and they will not be saying anything that could impact the proper process of the law.
Erskine May, external, the guide to parliamentary procedure first published in 1844, says MPs should not put a question before Parliament which “casts reflections upon the sovereign or the Royal Family”.
That has generally been treated more as guidance than an official ban on discussing or criticising the Royal Family in Parliament.
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source www.bbc.co.uk ’
