Parliament’s spending watchdog raises ‘value for money’ concern over Royal Lodge

Parliament’s spending watchdog has raised concerns over the value for money of Prince Andrew’s living arrangements amid a furore over his “peppercorn” rent at Royal Lodge.

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has written to the Treasury and the Crown Estate asking them to explain the rationale behind the lease on the 30-room mansion by November 28.

The King’s brother is said to be in talks with Charles’s representatives about leaving the property voluntarily after renewed controversy over his links to paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.

In a letter on Wednesday, PAC chairman and Tory MP Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown said: “There is considerable and understandable public interest in the spending of public money in relation to Prince Andrew, which in part stems from the fact that he is no longer a working royal and from serious and disturbing allegations made against him.”

He asked a series of questions including whether the cost of any work on the property had been funded by the taxpayer, and whether an unredacted copy of the lease could be provided.

“Does the current tenancy remain the most appropriate use of the Royal Lodge in light of the recent changed role for Prince Andrew, and if so, on what grounds?” Sir Geoffrey wrote.

Andrew sought to draw a line under years of controversy after accusations that he sexually abused Virginia Giuffre, by giving up his dukedom and other titles ahead of the publication of her posthumous memoirs earlier this month.

But the prince, who strenuously denies the allegations, was instead swamped by criticism focused on the property he has lived in effectively rent-free since 2003.

In his letter, Sir Geoffrey said the Crown Estate has a duty to manage its land “according to the best consideration of money or money’s worth which in their opinion can be reasonably obtained”.

He went on: “We are therefore concerned as to whether the lease arrangements for Royal Lodge are, in light of recent developments and changes in the responsibilities of Prince Andrew, achieving the best value for money.

“They must also be justifiable in comparison to other options for the use or disposal of the property.

“It is also a matter of concern to the committee that the terms of the lease, including those relating to maintenance, are being effectively enforced to maintain the value and character of this nationally important royal residence.”

It comes after reports that Andrew hosted Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and Harvey Weinstein at the property before his daughter Princess Beatrice’s masked ball 18th birthday celebrations at Windsor Castle in 2006.

The monarchy is facing mounting pressure to resolve the issues surrounding Andrew, with some MPs eager to debate the topic in Parliament.

During a visit to Lichfield Cathedral on Monday, the King was heckled by a man shouting: “How long have you known about Andrew and Epstein?”

The Government has so far refused to allocate time in the Commons for MPs to discuss the situation, saying 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 timetable for the House.

The Treasury and the Crown Estate have been contacted for comment.