Documents relating to Prince Andrew’s role as trade envoy ‘may have been destroyed’

Officials documents relating to Prince Andrew’s time as a trade envoy for Britain could have been destroyed, it has been reported.

According to the Daily Mail, the Government says memos, emails and cables exchanged between officials relating to visits made by the Duke of York “may no longer be retained”.

The Government’s “retention policy” means the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) send documents of “historical importance” to the National Archives in Kew.

Anything else is traditionally destroyed.

A Freedom of Information request from biographer Andrew Lownie looked to shed light on documents from 2001 that would explained who accompanied the duke on his trade trips, his work schedule and any correspondence between officials.

The DBT however, which succeeded the body that looked after the visits with the Foreign Office, reportedly said it held no such documents.

The prince’s time as a trade envoy reportedly saw him push the business interests of his close friend, the multi-millionaire financier David Rowland, reports the Mail.

The Information Commissioner’s Office has now responded to Dr Lownie’s request. It says that, even if the documents existed, “it may no longer be retained”.

MailOnline says Dr Lownie’s search for the documents in Kew was unsuccesful. While the DBT has reportedly not confirmed whether the documents were destroyed.

The papers relating to Andrew’s work would have been kept for 20 years if they were deemed to be “records of historical value”.

Dr Lownie had previously told The Tatler that documents relating to Andrew’s work may not be available until 2065. This is because protocol suggests royal files can remain sealed until 105 years after the subject’s birth.

The DBT told MailOnline: “The department has complied with our obligations under the Freedom of Information Act, and this was confirmed by the Information Commissioner’s Office.”

SOURCE

Leave a Comment

ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT ArT