4 hours ago
2
Prince Andrew could face a parliamentary debate on his conduct despite the government so far refusing to allocate time in the House of Commons, as the Liberal Democrats indicated they were exploring ways of raising the issue including in an opposition day debate.
Andrew is reportedly in advanced talks with the king’s representatives over moving out of the 30-room Grade II-listed Royal Lodge at Windsor, despite his “cast-iron” lease running until 2078.
There have also been calls for his Duke of York title, which he has said he will no longer use, to be officially removed, which would require legislation.
The government is unwilling to table a motion to discuss Andrew, saying the royal family wishes parliament to focus on “important issues”. However a Lib Dem source told the Guardian that the party was “exploring all options, including an opposition day debate, to ensure parliament can scrutinise this properly – from Prince Andrew’s residence at Royal Lodge to his dukedom”.
They added: “The first thing we need is proper transparency and accountability – that’s why we’ve called for the crown estate and Prince Andrew to give evidence under oath in parliament.”
While noting that the government controls the timing of such debates, the source said the Lib Dems hoped an eventual move by parliament would be “hand in hand with the palace” and in line with the king’s wishes.
The comments signal that the Lib Dems want to frame any discussion of Andrew’s future as a matter of public accountability rather than of personal scandal, reflecting growing unease in Westminster about the lack of transparency around royal finances and grace-and-favour residences.
Party figures have privately suggested the episode underlines the need for “modern standards of public scrutiny” to apply across all publicly funded estates, including those managed by the crown estate.
Their intervention is likely to add to pressure on ministers and Buckingham Palace to clarify the duke’s future at Royal Lodge. Figures from other parties have noted that any Commons debate on the issue would be symbolically significant, breaking from decades of convention that MPs avoid direct criticism of the royal family.
The ability of MPs to discuss matters relating to the royal family is constrained under the Commons’ procedures. The guide to the rules, known as Erskine May, states: “Unless the discussion is based upon a substantive motion, drawn in proper terms, reflections must not be cast in debate upon the conduct of the sovereign, the heir to the throne or other members of the royal family.”
Andrew, 65, announced last week he would no longer use his titles and honours, after the continuing fallout over his links to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted child sex offender.
The terms of his residency at Royal Lodge dominated headlines after it was reported he paid £1m to the crown estate for the lease in 2003, and paid the required £7.5m to refurbish the property, but has paid “one peppercorn (if demanded)” in rent a year since.
Andrew’s announcement came days before the posthumous publication of the memoir of his sex assault accuser, Virginia Giuffre, who died by suicide in April aged 41. The prince has always strenuously denied her allegations that he had sex with her on three occasions while she was trafficked by Epstein.
