Members of Parliament were “misdirected” by the Royal household when they asked questions about Prince Andrew’s finances and occupation of Royal Lodge, it has been alleged.
In 2005, a year after Andrew moved into the expansive 30-bed mansion, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) grilled officials over the move and how the Prince would afford the rent and upkeep on the Grade II-listed property. However, former MP Ian Davidson has now accused authorities of “stonewalling” their investigation, reports The Telegraph.
This follows the revelation this week that the disgraced former Duke of York has only paid a “peppercorn” rent on the lush Crown Estate property, where he has lived with ex-wife Sarah Ferguson for more than 20 years. Previously, it was believed that Andrew was paying a hefty monthly fee.
A “peppercorn” rent, as explained in a copy of the Royal Lodge’s leasehold agreement seen by The Times, means that Prince Andrew has been living rent-free, as he would only ever have had to pay a rent of one peppercorn, if asked. But when Mr Davidson’s select committee inquired 20 years ago, they were allegedly given “no straight answers” and simply “flat out refused.”
The lease also stipulates that this could increase to a “notional rent” if the occupant did not invest in the property, which Andrew paid an initial £1 million to move into. However, in 2005, the then-Duke of York ploughed a further £7.5 million into refurbishing the Royal Lodge, the documents show.
This fresh information has caused an immediate furore, with its implication that Andrew has been living at the Crown’s largesse despite the long and ever-deepening scandal over his friendship with convicted paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.
Standing up in the Commons on Wednesday, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer agreed to MPs’ demands for new scrutiny of Prince Andrew and his Royal Lodge living arrangements, raising the potential of a parliamentary committee raking Prince Andrew over the coals.
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey asked Starmer to “support a select committee inquiry so all those involved should be called for evidence, including the current occupant”.
With the Prime Minister replying: “It’s important in relation to all properties, Crown properties, that there is proper scrutiny so I certainly support that.”
Speaking to the Telegraph, former Labour MP Ian Davidson said that his questions in 2005 led to a National Audit Office investigation into the Royal Lodge deal. This body found that the mansion could easily achieve a rent of £260,000, which would be roughly £500,000 today, but also that security requirements meant that only a Royal could occupy the Windsor Great Park home.
But when the Crown Estate and the Royal household were initially asked about Prince Andrew’s personal arrangements by MPs, they stayed silent. Mr Davidson said: “We found it very difficult to get any straight answers at all about the financial arrangements surrounding Prince Andrew’s accommodation.
“We kept being misdirected and were simply flat refused details. It wasn’t clear at that time that the Prince was in receipt of such a substantial public subsidy for his accommodation.
“We would have pressed further. But in the face of stonewalling by the authorities – and by that I mean the royal household, the Crown Estate and the government – we couldn’t make any progress.”
A source told the publication that the National Audit Office were made aware of the lease agreement’s terms during their investigation.
The 65-year-old, who agreed to relinquish his royal titles and peerage last week in a dramatic announcement, will now face serious questions about how he has financed his lifestyle in his £30 million mansion, which has an estimated annual upkeep of £600,000 without even accounting for staff and furnishings.
It is believed that Andrew’s finances are running low due to a series of failed bids to generate income from various sources, including the Pitch@Palace initiative to foster business startups with a Dragons’ Den format.
This last venture has embroiled the Prince in entirely new scandals separate from his friendship with Epstein, with it also emerging this week that Andrew met with two alleged spies for the Chinese Communist Party while on an overseas trip. This led to concerns that he could be a “national security risk.”
It now seems likely that Andrew will be hauled before MPs and quizzed over his financial arrangements, with PAC making their first move on Wednesday night. Lib Dem MP Sarah Olney demanded that he appear before the committee and added: “Prince Andrew has repeatedly escaped accountability, and his actions have been a betrayal to the Royal family and the British people. He must answer to this latest scandal.”
Buckingham Palace said in a statement: “In 2005, a National Audit Office report confirmed that the Royal household ‘co-operated with its inquiries’ on the Royal Lodge lease, answering ‘the questions raised’. This included sharing that the rent paid would be an annual peppercorn rent. The report also disclosed that an independent evaluation concluded that the transaction was appropriate.”
A spokesman from the PAC said: “The committee notes the matters raised in relation to the lease of Royal Lodge. The committee’s programme of inquiries is currently full up until the new year.
“Any decisions on the lease are a policy matter for the royal household. As well as the 2005 National Audit Office report on the letting of Royal Lodge, the committee understands that these arrangements were accurately disclosed to the National Audit Office as part of its annual and most recent audit of Crown Estate accounts.
“The NAO will be, as part of its normal programme of work, looking at the Crown Estate’s annual report and accounts in the next financial year. The committee would decide in due course whether to incorporate this into its own programme of work at that time.”