MPs could debate Prince Andrew’s conduct, his 30-room mansion, and the possibility of stripping him of his dukedom.
The government has so far refused to allocate time in the House of Commons for MPs to debate Andrew’s situation, because the royal family wants parliament to focus on “important issues”.
But the issue could be raised on one of the days when ministers are not in control of the parliamentary timetable.
A Liberal Democrat source indicated to the Sunday Times that the party could be prepared to use one of its opposition days to allow MPs to discuss Andrew’s behaviour, and his future.
Although Andrew has given up using his Duke of York title, only a law passed by parliament can formally remove it.
The prince is reportedly in discussions about leaving his Royal Lodge home voluntarily, following the furore over the “peppercorn” rent for his Windsor property.
The King’s brother is said to be in talks with Charles’ representatives, but is reluctant to give up his residence of more than 20 years, with the sticking points said to be the location of his new home and financial compensation for funds spent on the lodge.
Andrew attempted to draw a line under years of controversy, following allegations he sexually abused Virginia Giuffre, by giving up his dukedom and other honours ahead of the publication of Giuffre’s posthumous memoir.
But the prince, who strenuously denies the allegations, was instead swamped by criticism that focused on the property he has lived in effectively rent-free since 2003.
Andrew currently lives at Royal Lodge on a so-called peppercorn rent – a token amount that typically exists only to ensure the lease is valid.
The King has long been said to have tried to encourage his younger brother, who lives in the home with his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson, to move out, but Andrew signed a watertight 75-year lease on the property in 2003.
His leasehold agreement, seen by the PA news agency, revealed he paid £1 million for the lease and that since then he paid “one peppercorn” of rent “if demanded” per year.
He was also required to pay a further £7.5 million for refurbishments completed in 2005, according to a report by the National Audit Office.
The ability of MPs to discuss matters relating to the royal family is constrained under the Commons’ procedures.
The guide to rules, known 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.”
With the government unwilling to table a motion to discuss Andrew due to the wishes of the royal family, an opposition debate could be a way for MPs to speak out.
A Liberal Democrat source told the Sunday Times: “We need to explore all options, including an opposition day debate, to ensure parliament can scrutinise properly, from Prince Andrew’s residence at Royal Lodge to his dukedom.
“The first thing we need is proper transparency and accountability – that’s why we have called for the Crown Estate and Prince Andrew to give evidence under oath in parliament.”
The Lib Dems have one opposition day left this parliamentary session, but no date has yet been allocated for it.
The source told PA news agency: “We’ll take a decision on what is most important for the national interest as and when the government tells us when it will be.
“It’s right that we’re led by the King on this, and if parliament does have to act we hope it can be hand-in-hand with the palace.”
This is the Talking Royals – our weekly podcast about the royal family, with ITV News Royal Editor Chris Ship and Producer Lizzie Robinson…
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source www.itv.com ’
