Parliament will hold a debate this week examining Andrew’s connections to Jeffrey Epstein and his financial arrangements at Royal Lodge, marking the first time MPs can directly scrutinise the former royal.
Officials have confirmed that Andrew, aged 65, no longer enjoys protection from Commons criticism after losing his royal status.
The conventional ban on MPs questioning royals no longer applies to him as a private citizen.
The debate follows King Charles’s initiation of formal proceedings last month to strip Andrew of his titles and honours.
Andrew suffers blow as Parliament to debate Epstein connections and Royal Lodge deal in just days
|
GETTY
He was also served notice to vacate his Royal Lodge residence.
MPs will now have the opportunity to raise questions about his relationship with the deceased financier and paedophile, as well as the financial implications of his departure from the royal property.
Financial uncertainty surrounds Andrew’s exit from Royal Lodge, where he resided without paying rent for over two decades, according to recent revelations that sparked public outrage last month.
His lease agreement originally stipulated a £558,000 payment from the Crown Estate for early vacation of the property. However, the final sum remains unclear due to deductions for necessary repairs at the residence.
Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and Jeffrey Epstein photographed at a party in 2000
|
GETTYAdditional compensation includes a six-figure relocation payment and ongoing annual financial support, though specific amounts have not been disclosed.
A Liberal Democrat source stated: “There are still too many unanswered questions surrounding this scandal that the public deserve answers to. That includes the size of the payout Andrew will receive for leaving the Royal Lodge and what advice the government has provided.”
The source emphasised the need for Andrew to provide sworn testimony to Parliament.
The US House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has written to Andrew seeking an interview about his “long-standing friendship” with Epstein as part of their investigation into the financier’s sex trafficking network.
The committee’s letter highlighted that financial records containing entries such as “massage for Andrew” have prompted serious questions. They stated their investigation aims to identify Epstein’s accomplices and enablers whilst determining the full scope of his criminal enterprise.
“Well-documented allegations against you, along with your long-standing friendship with Epstein, indicate that you may possess knowledge of his activities relevant to our investigation,” the committee wrote.
They requested Andrew’s cooperation through a transcribed interview, stating: “In the interest of justice for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, we request that you co-operate with the committee’s investigation.”
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey has called for Andrew to provide evidence to the US Congress regarding his connections to Epstein, stating it would be “the right thing” to do.
“He should also give evidence to our parliament. The public deserve answers and full transparency about this scandal,” Sir Ed declared.
The Liberal Democrats argue that parliamentary testimony under oath would finally deliver the scrutiny that has been absent regarding Andrew’s ties to Epstein and his victims.
They maintain that ministers should face direct questioning about government involvement and potential taxpayer costs.
Virginia Giuffre, who passed away in April, had accused Andrew of sexual assault following an introduction by Epstein. Andrew has consistently and strongly rejected these allegations.