A Call for Transparency Over a Royal Trade Role

House of Commons Urges Release of Former Prince’s Trade Envoy Files

The House of Commons has moved to demand that documents concerning a former prince’s decade‑long service as a UK trade envoy be made public. The motion, led by the Liberal Democrats, seeks to uncover how he was selected and whether his ties to a notorious financier affected his work.

Key Points

• Government Response
  Trade Minister Chris Bryant told MPs that the government would release the files “as soon as practicable and possible within law.” He added that any release could be limited by an ongoing police probe into the former prince’s conduct.

• Police Investigation
  The investigation concerns allegations that he shared confidential information with a convicted sex offender while serving as an envoy. This inquiry follows U.S. documents involving the financier that were released in January.

• Prince’s Silence
  The prince has not answered BBC questions about the accusations. He has repeatedly denied wrongdoing, but his arrest last week on suspicion of misconduct in public office has raised new concerns.

• Succession Concerns
  Bryant addressed calls to strip the prince from his place in the royal succession. He said the government is working quickly on legislation that could remove him, though no specific date has been set. He warned that influence can be as harmful as power and urged the legal system to hold those who abuse it accountable.

• Calls for Inquiry
  Some MPs want a full public inquiry into how trade envoys are chosen. The Business and Trade Committee chair said an investigation could start only after the police case concludes, but they are already gathering information to be ready when the time comes.

• Transparency Issues
  Other lawmakers highlighted the lack of transparency surrounding the royal family. A Green Party MP pointed out that certain communications are exempt from public disclosure under a freedom‑of‑information loophole, and called for the release of all correspondence between royals and the financier.

Implications

The debate shows a push for greater openness about appointments that involve public money and potential conflicts of interest. The government’s willingness to cooperate with the motion may set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future.