MPs will not be given time in the House of Commons to discuss Prince Andrew’s conduct because the royal family wants Parliament to focus on “important issues”, Downing Street said.
The Commons could only discuss Andrew’s friendship with paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein and his rent-free mansion if there was a formal motion, but the Government controls the bulk of parliamentary time.
Downing Street said it would not allocate time for a debate in the chamber although MPs could still scrutinise the situation in committees.
READ MORE: Speaker addresses ‘inaccuracies’ on what MPs can say on Prince Andrew
Revelations in the posthumous memoir of Andrew’s sex accuser Virginia Giuffre have placed increasing pressure on the King’s brother, who announced last week he would stop using the “Duke of York” title.
Calls have intensified for Andrew to give up his 30-room Royal Lodge home in Windsor Great Park after it emerged he paid a “peppercorn rent” for more than 20 years.
The Public Accounts Committee is to write to the Crown Estate and the Treasury to raise “a number of questions” about Andrew’s lease on the property.
Only legislation can formally remove his dukedom, which is now held in abeyance.
Asked whether ministers would allocate time for a debate, a No 10 spokesperson said: “Prince Andrew has already confirmed he will not use his titles.
“We support the decision made by the royal family and we know the royal family would not want to take time from other important issues.”
Prince Andrew is facing scrutiny over his ties to the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein (Image: PA)
In response to repeated questions about a Commons debate, the spokesperson said: “We know the royal family would not want to take time from other important issues.”
Asked why No 10 was blocking MPs from discussing Andrew’s conduct, the spokesperson said: “I don’t accept that. Any decision by committees to scrutinise developments are a matter for them.”
Asked whether No 10 viewed it as a waste of parliamentary time to discuss Andrew’s lease of the Royal Lodge on a peppercorn rent, the spokesperson said: “That’s not what I’ve said.”
READ MORE: Sky News issues correction over false Maccabi Tel Aviv ban claim
Commons Speaker Lindsay Hoyle said there was no ban on MPs discussing the conduct of a member of the royal family but it would have to be on a “substantive motion” rather than during regular question time sessions.
Polling by Ipsos conducted earlier this week found 88% believe it was right for Andrew to give up his titles.
More than half of those asked believe there should be an Act of Parliament to remove them. More than four fifths of Britons have a negative view of the prince.
SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn (Image: PA)
Commons leader Alan Campbell was asked on Thursday whether MPs would have time to debate a motion put forward by the Scottish National Party to create a new law to formally strip Andrew of his dukedom.
The leader of the SNP in Westminster, Stephen Flynn said: “I have laid a motion before this House which calls on the Government to listen to parliamentarians and to listen to the public and to listen to victims and take legislative action to remove the dukedom from Prince Andrew.
“When is the Government going to come forward with that legislation?”
Campbell said: “I know that there’s been speculation about legislation. But the palace have been clear that they recognise that there are other matters that this House needs to be getting on with, and we are guided in this by the palace.
“That doesn’t mean that the House can’t find ways of debating these matters, whether it be the matter of titles, or whether it be a matter of the finances, which I know are under question here.”
READ MORE: Prince Andrew invited to stay at Highland castle amid ‘exile’ reports
The Commons rulebook, know as Erskine May, states that “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”.
The Speaker said there had been “inaccurate” commentary on whether MPs are able to discuss Andrew in Parliament, adding: “There are ways for the House to properly consider this matter.”
He said: “Any discussions about the conduct or reflections on members of the royal family can be properly discussed on the substantive motions.
“And I know some members have already tabled such a motion. I am not able to allocate time for a debate on such a motion, but others are able to do so, if wishing to do that.
“But on questions, the long-standing practice of the House, as set out in Erskine May, is that criticism of members of the royal family cannot be made as part of questions. I hope this is helpful clarification, as there is lots of online speculation.”
Substantive motions can be tabled by the Government, opposition parties in opposition day debates, and by backbenchers through an application to the Backbench Business Committee.
The prince vehemently denies the late Giuffre’s allegations she was forced to have sex with him three times including when she was 17 and also during an orgy after she was trafficked by Epstein.
Buckingham Palace declined to comment.
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source uk.news.yahoo.com ’
