The government has refused to give MPs time to debate Prince Andrew’s titles or taxpayer-funded home, despite growing pressure for scrutiny.
The decision effectively kills efforts to pass a law to strip Prince Andrew of his dukedom, only a day after ex-Labour MP Rachel Maskell tabled a bill in the Commons.
Downing Street rejected suggestions that it was “blocking” debate, pointing our Prince Andrew agreed to no longer use his titles after Virginia Giuffre’s memoir revived claims about his ties to paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
Sir Keir Starmer is facing Lib Dem calls for a select committee inquiry into the deal that let Prince Andrew live rent-free on the 30-room Royal Lodge for two decades.
Journalists repeatedly asked the PM’s official spokesperson if the government – which controls the Commons timetable – would give MPs time to debate Andrew’s titles and financial affairs.
The spokesperson said: “We know that the Royal Family would not want to take time from other important issues.”
On the question of whether Prince Andrew could be hauled before a select committee, they added: “Any decision for committees to scrutinise developments are a matter for them.”
The chairman of the influential public accounts committee, Tory MP Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, has said he is writing to the Crown Estate and the government in the coming days to “seek further information on the lease arrangements for Royal Lodge”.
Earlier this week, when asked if it would launch an inquiry, a spokesperson for the committee said its programme of inquiries was “full up until the new year”.
Sir Geoffrey says the committee will make a decision next year on whether to investigate the Royal Lodge, when the Crown Estate’s next annual accounts have been published.
Prince Andrew’s ties to Epstein came under fresh scrutiny after Ms Giuffre’s memoir Nobody’s Girl revealed new details of her allegations against the pair.
Prince Andrew, who reached a financial settlement with Ms Giuffre in 2022, has always denied the allegations.
Ahead of the books publication, Prince Andrew announced he will be giving up his royal titles. Only legislation can formally remove his dukedom, which is now held in abeyance.
Calls have also intensified for Andrew to give up his Royal Lodge home in Windsor Great Park after it emerged he paid a “peppercorn rent” for more than 20 years.
Liberal Democrat Leader Sir Ed Davey has called for Prince Andrew to be hauled in front of MPs to give evidence about his lease of Royal Lodge.
Responding to the PM’s spokesman’s comments, Lib Dem Cabinet Office spokesperson Lisa Smart said the “government should be making time for MPs to debate issues surrounding Prince Andrew’s lease of Royal Lodge – transparency is vital when it comes to how taxpayers’ money is spent.
“The public understandably want answers,” she added.
There had been some confusion over whether a member of the Royal Family could be asked to give evidence in Parliament.
Earlier on Thursday, Commons Speaker Sir 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.
One option open to MPs is to use opposition or backbench debate time in the Commons to raise the issue of Prince Andrew.
These results of these debates – which are not controlled by the government – are not legally binding on ministers, but can create political pressure for a policy change.
The SNP had pressed Commons Leader Sir Alan Campbell to give MPs time to debate plans to remove Prince Andrew’s title.
Sir Alan said: “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.”
Independent MP Rachel Maskell has attempted to change the law to allow the King to remove titles following a recommendation from Parliament or at the request of the title holder.
“The Duke of York title may no longer be being used by its holder, but it has not been removed,” said the former Labour MP as she formally introduced her Removal of Titles Bill on Wednesday.
As a private members’ bill it would have stood very little chance of becoming law and the decision of the government not to give MPs debating time has effectively killed it.