THE Royal Family’s attempts to halt the tide of lurid allegations that have followed the collapse of the Paul Burrell trial rebounded on them last night when an internal inquiry into the affair was denounced as a cover-up and fresh questions were raised about whether the Queen could have stopped the trial ever taking place.
An inquiry set up by St James’s Palace is to investigate not only the Burrell affair, but also allegations of homosexual rape among the Prince’s staff and the sale of the Royal Family’s unwanted gifts. As The Times disclosed yesterday, the Prince of Wales raises more than £100,000 a year from such sales and pays commission to his staff. The Inland Revenue is interested in whether the staff have declared the income.
But rather than appoint a high-powered independent figure, the Palace has chosen the Prince’s private secretary, Sir Michael Peat, to conduct the inquiry. And he will not question the Queen about why she waited until the last minute to mention the conversation in which Mr Burrell told her that he had taken some things belonging to the late Diana, Princess of Wales.
Buckingham Palace instead issued an unprecedented statement last night in which it admitted that the Queen had had discussed the case three times over a period of two years before she made the casual remark to her son that brought the trial to an end.
The moves by the two palaces had been designed to repair the House of Windsor’s tarnished reputation before today’s State Opening of Parliament and a Golden Jubilee party tomorrow night. The Prince will give evidence to the inquiry and for the first time an outsider — Edmund Lawson, QC — will be involved. The Palace will also, for the first time, publish a full report of the inquiry, which is expected to be complete by Christmas. But that was not enough to prevent MPs and eminent lawyers dismissing the investigaton as a whitewash.
Sir Michael himself fuelled those suspicions when he appeared to pre-empt his own inquiry by trying to justify the Queen’s actions and by presenting detailed evidence which his investigation is expected to cover. He also seemed to recognise the shortcomings of his remit when he said that an independent inquiry may yet follow.
The Labour MP David Winnick said: “It would have been better if there had been an independent inquiry into all aspects, including the circumstances in which the case collapsed. Without an independent inquiry, these rumours and innuendo will continue and I don’t think it does any service to the Royal Family.” The left-wing Labour MP Dennis Skinner added: “This can’t be truly independent. As for the man in charge, Sir Michael Peat, he works for the Palace, he is paid by the Palace, he was knighted by the Palace and it is a racing certainty that he will find for the Palace.”
Anthony Scrivener, QC, a former chairman of the Bar Council, criticised the decision to exclude the Queen from the hearings, saying: “Everyone should be made to answer questions, including the Queen.” But Buckingham Palace said: “There will be no meeting with the Queen and Sir Michael because he already knows what the Queen said and did.”
The Palace also offered a detailed account of the Queen’s role in the Burrell case with its statement last night which showed that members of the Royal Family and their officials were much more closely involved in the police investigation of Mr Burrell than had previously been disclosed.
Until now it had been thought that the Queen had never discussed the case until ten days into the trial when she told her son of her conversation with Mr Burrell. Last night, however, Palace officials said that she had been given three briefings by her private secretary on the state of the investigation in January, April and the autumn of last year.
The statement also says that the Queen spent 90 minutes with Mr Burrell on the day in December 1997 when he told her that he had some of the Princess’s belongings. It adds: “No response was sought and none given” to the butler’s admission.
Finally, the statement says that the Queen refused a request from Mr Burrell’s solicitor for a meeting in September last year to discuss “his life and service”. The Palace says that such a meeting “might have been misinterpreted as interference in the judicial process”.
Sir Michael defended the Queen last night from suggestions that she should have taken advantage of one of those occasions to mention her conversation with the butler. He said she did not believe it was relevant because the police were alleging that Mr Burrell was selling the Princess’s possessions.
“The police never went back to the Prince of Wales to tell him that they did not have any evidence that Burrell was selling items abroad or dressing up in Diana’s clothing. The Queen therefore continued to believe that the police had evidence and therefore that her conversation was not relevant.
“It was only when the Queen read the newspapers during the court case that she realised that what Paul Burrell had said to her was relevant . . . we were all surprised that the information did result in the trial coming to an end.”
Sir Michael also rejected suggestions that his inquiry would be a whitewash, saying: “The Prince of Wales has instructed me to undertake this inquiry without fear or favour and there is a very eminent QC on the inquiry team. I and, more importantly, the Prince of Wales are totally committed to openness and accountability.
“The inquiry will examine:
Whether staff members had been in receipt of unwarranted income from the sale of gifts for Prince Charles.” Sir Michael added: “It is up to me to make sure that this office is whiter than white. “If it is decided in due course that there should be an external review then we would be delighted to help in any way we can.”
The QC who has been called in to help with the inquiry is already involved in the Stephen Lawrence and Bloody Sunday inquires. Edmund Lawson is regarded as a top-flight counsel in both fraud and criminal matters.
