Royal Family 'sheltered from scrutiny in too many ways', says Green MP
"The Royal Family is sheltered from scrutiny in too many ways," says Green Party MP Sian Berry. "It's very clear now what a risk this can pose."
She cites Section 37 of the Freedom of Information Act, which she says exempts communications between "relevant authorities" and "not just the King, but wider members of the Royal Family", from being publicly disclosed.
"This is a serious transparency loophole for royals that must be closed," Berry says.
She says that she has tabled a motion for the release of all communications between members of the Royal Family and Jeffrey Epstein.
"If reports are correct, that the Royal Family were aware of concerns about Andrew's financial dealings ahead of his appointment [as trade envoy]", she says, and "there are serious questions about whether and how that knowledge matches the King's statement" released in the aftermath of Andrew's arrest.
For context, following Andrew's arrest, the King released a statement saying that he had "learned with the deepest concern" about the allegations against his brother, but that the police had his "full and wholehearted support and cooperation".
Davey's previous comments take shine off Lib Dems' big Commons moment
Brian Wheeler
Reporting from the House of Commons
Liberal Democrats leader Sir Ed Davey nods vigorously as O’Hara asks what else Davey could have said when he was asked about Andrew’s performance in the role of trade envoy when he was a junior minister.
Davey has come in for a lot of flak for saying Andrew was doing an “excellent job” in 2011, which has taken some of the shine off his party’s big Commons moment today.
O’Hara is making a strong attack on the convention that prevents MPs from criticising members of the Royal Family.
He quotes the “late great” Labour MP Paul Flynn who said MPs have “to remove the bandages from our mouths” when it comes to the Royals.
Davey had accused Flynn, a staunch Republican, of “spreading innuendo” about Andrew in 2011. The Lib Dem leader has said he now regrets his comments.
SNP MP says there are 'serious questions' over Andrew's appointment
The SNP's Brendan O'Hara says files relating to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's appointment as trade envoy must be released in full, and it is "the very least [Epstein's] victims and the survivors deserve".
He says there are "serious questions" that need to be answered about Andrew's appointment.
This, he says, includes: "Who vetted him? Was he vetted at all? What role did Peter Mandelson play in making this appointment happen? What in his previous life made him uniquely suitable for the position of UK trade envoy?"
He also asks about warnings that were given about Andrew's character, and who scrutinised his behaviour.
'On what basis was Andrew given trade envoy role?' Lib Dem MP asks
Lib Dem MP Monica Harding says that in the early-2000s she was working overseas with the British Council, in a location Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor visited as part of his role as a UK trade envoy.
She says: "His reputation preceded him.
"I was told... that overseas missions feared putting him out there in case he said something inappropriate, that he was arrogant, and that he wasn't on top of the detail of his brief... it was thought that he would do damage."
Harding continues, asking: "On what basis for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor given the role as trade envoy? Who put him forward and was there resistance to it?"
Andrew 'must be held to account', says Labour MP
Labour MP Rachael Maskell says: "The web of abuse surrounding Epstein and his associates must be brought to book."
She adds that "Mr Mountbatten-Windsor, as a known associate, must also be held to account in his role as a special trade envoy, and for his associations too."
As a reminder, 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 the late financier. He has previously denied any wrongdoing in relation to Epstein.
Maskell says it needs to be understood "how signing off for massages became the duty of the taxpayer", and that there needs to be processes where "people can raise concern wherever they see that".
The Labour MP is referring to a claim from whistleblowing retired civil servants that Andrew charged taxpayers for massages and excessive travel costs while working as the UK's trade envoy.
The Department for Business and Trade has not challenged the claim about Andrew's time as envoy, between 2001 and 2011, but has referred to the ongoing police investigation into the former prince.
MPs are not holding back in their language on Andrew
Daniela Relph
Senior royal correspondent
It is incredibly striking to hear a member of the Royal Family discussed in this way in the House of Commons.
MPs sharing their experiences of Andrew Mountbatten Windsor – not holding back in their language and description of him.
But the conversation is changing on a story that touches on privilege, deference, public money, political influence and the Royal Family.
Convention and restraint no longer feel right when the public wants answers or - at the very least - hear conversations are being had at the highest level.
Conservative MP says government 'could have been much more proactive from the start'
Next up is Alex Burghart, the Conservative shadow chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
He says his party supports the motion, and that it is "quite right that this House is enabled to scrutinise what went on and how it went on".
Burghart says he "appreciates the way" the government is going to co-operate with the motion, but says it "could have been much more proactive on this issue right from the start".
'We will put everything into the public domain when we can,' says Bryant
The government will make sure "every single part of government co-operates entirely with both the Thames Valley Police and any other investigations by any other police force that there may be on whatever they may be investigating", Bryant says.
Lib Dem MP Tessa Munt asks the minister whether he agrees that it is "timely" that the government now "presses ahead with the Public Office Accountability Bill", and passes an amendment which would allow an "independent... High Court judge [to] say what may and may not be released".
Bryant replies: "We will put everything into the public domain when we can. I don't want to do so at a time which would make it impossible for the police to secure the proper processes."
He adds that he is "not sure that adding an intervening person helps that process".
Minister warns release of Andrew documents could take time
Trade Minister Chris Bryant continues, saying that while the government "will comply with the motion in full", it will issue a caveat.
He says he wants to draw attention to the live police investigation into Andrew, reiterating that "it is absolutely crucial that the integrity of their investigation is protected".
"Now these proceedings are underway, it'll be wrong of me to say anything that might prejudice them," he continues.
Tory MP Sir Edward Leigh stands up to say that, while he agrees, "the wheels of justice grind exceedingly slow, it might be years, years before we see any of these papers."
Bryant says he wants to make sure things move "as fast as we can", but cautions that there is a "substantial" number of decades-old documents, which could influence the speed of their release.
Bryant presses Davey on previous comments about Andrew's trade role
Bryant then addresses Liberal Democrats leader Ed Davey, who introduced the motion to the Commons.
He mentions Davey's comments during a parliamentary debate in 2011, where he said Andrew was doing an "excellent job" as trade envoy and dismissed concerns around him at the time as "innuendo".
Speaking in the Commons, Bryant says: "I think if he had followed the debates in the public domain at the time, he would have known better than to have made those comments."
Davey responds: "The minister knows that I apologise for that comment, taking the brief from someone else, I really wish I hadn't said those words, because I'm thinking about the victims."
Earlier on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Davey was similarly asked about his defence of Andrew during the 2011 debate.
During that interview, Davey said he regretted those comments and that "no MP mentioned Epstein in that debate and I think that tells a tale about how Parliament and MPs don't hold the Royal Family, didn't hold [the former] Prince Andrew in that really privileged position, properly to account".
Andrew 'a rude, arrogant and entitled man' - Bryant
Bryant goes on to describe Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor as "a rude, arrogant and entitled man who could not distinguish between the public interest, which he said he served, and his own private interest".
The minister says he called for Andrew to be sacked as trade envoy multiple times in 2011, in part because of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
But, Bryant says, the then-prime minister, home secretary and "many others in government" defended the former prince "time and time and time again".
As a reminder, 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 the late financier. He has previously denied any wrongdoing in relation to Epstein.
Government supports Lib Dems' motion, says minister
Trade Minister Chris Bryant is next to speak in the Commons, on behalf of the government.
He begins by saying: "We support this motion today."
Bryant says Epstein's "abuse was enabled, aided and abetted by a very extensive group of arrogant, entitled and often very wealth individuals in this country."
"It's not just the people who participated in the abuse, it's the many, many more who turned a blind eye", he continues.
How have the Lib Dems managed to call this debate on Andrew?
Caitlin Doherty
Live reporter
We've just finished hearing from Liberal Democrats leader Ed Davey. His party have been able to push for this debate today because it is an allotted opposition day.
Every parliamentary term there are a certain number of days allocated where the topics of discussion are decided by parties in opposition.
This debate is, in parliamentary language, a "humble address" in the House of Commons - which is technically a message to the King.
The motion requests "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".
This is the same mechanism the Conservatives used earlier this month to press for the release of government files on Peter Mandelson's appointment as US ambassador.
Davey calls senior figures' association with Epstein 'a stain on our country'
Coming to the end of his speech, Davey refers to this as "the first truly global scandal".
"But it is also a deeply British scandal," he adds, "reaching right to the top of the British establishment".
"Can there be many people more symbolic of the rot that eats away at the British establishment than the former Duke of York and special trade envoy, and the former business secretary, first secretary of state and ambassador to the United States?" Davey asks
"Their association with Epstein and their actions on his behalf while trusted with the privilege of public office are a stain on our country," he says.
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 the late financier. He has previously denied any wrongdoing in relation to Epstein.
Lord Mandelson has not publicly commented in recent weeks on the Epstein files, but the BBC understands his position is he has not acted in any way criminally and that he was not motivated by financial gain.
Can MPs discuss the Royal Family?
Caitlin Doherty
Live reporter
The Lib Dem leader just cited a previous Speaker of the Commons saying discussion of the Royal Family in the Commons must be "very rare, very sparing and very respectful".
And indeed it is unusual for royals to be discussed in the House of Commons.
Although there is no outright ban on discussing them, there is a series of rules that dictate what MPs can and can't say about the Royal Family.
According to guidance from the House of Commons Library, there is no "general prohibition" on discussing the Royal Family, for example when it comes to legislation that affects them.
However, MPs are not allowed to use the King's name to influence debate, and criticism of individuals can only be made if a motion explicitly calls for action or an opinion.
Questions in Parliament must also relate to matters for which minsters are responsible.
'We need to get to the bottom of this appointment' - Davey
Davey gives way to Plaid Cymru MP Liz Saville Roberts, who calls on the government to introduce "independent oversight of those members of the Royal Family who undertake official duties, and require both transparency and scrutiny over anything from now on, paid for by the state."
Back to Davey, who says the motion focuses on "finally getting the truth out about [Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's] role as a special representative for trade and investment" - specifically his appointment in 2001.
"We've seen the reporting that the King, then Prince of Wales, expressed his concerns about that appointment. More alarmingly, we have read that Peter Mandelson wrote to the then-Prime Minister Tony Blair, as his former trade secretary, pushing for Andrew's appointment," Davey says.
"One friend of Epstein lobbying for a job for another friend of Epstein. A job that might help Epstein enrich himself. So we clearly need to get to the bottom of that appointment, and the role Mandelson himself played in it," he adds.
Lord Mandelson has not publicly commented in recent weeks on the Epstein files, but the BBC understands his position is he has not acted in any way criminally and that he was not motivated by financial gain
Andrew has 'shamed our country and the Royal Family', says Davey
Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Sir Ed Davey, stands up to introduce the motion to the Commons.
He begins saying that "the appalling crimes of Jeffrey Epstein and his associates have rightly stunned the whole world".
Epstein's operation turned "hundreds of young women and girls into victims and survivors", he says. "It's those women who are at the front of our minds today, as we finally seek transparency, truth and accountability."
Davey says "Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has shamed our country and the Royal Family."
He turns to what he calls an "outdated tradition", that he says requires discussion of the Royal Family to be "very rare, very sparing and very respectful".
Davey then quotes Amanda Roberts - sister-in-law of prominent Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre - saying that Andrew's arrest "could be a stain on the Royal Family for the rest of our history or it could be a moment where they and we decide that this is the time when cultural change happens".
As a reminder, 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 the late financier. He has previously denied any wrongdoing in relation to Epstein
