SNP Stephen Flynn calls on UK Government to strip Prince Andrew of royal titles

MPs are pressing for the conduct of members of the royal family to be debated in the Commons, the Speaker said, as Prince Andrew faces fresh scrutiny over his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

Sir Lindsay Hoyle said there had been “inaccurate” commentary on whether MPs are able to discuss Andrew in Parliament, adding: “There are ways for the House to properly consider this matter.”

Revelations in the posthumous memoir of Andrew’s sex accuser Virginia Giuffre have placed increasing pressure on the King’s brother, who announced last week he would stop using his Duke of York title.

Sir Keir Starmer said there should be “proper scrutiny” of Andrew’s rent-free mansion, in response to calls for a parliamentary inquiry at Prime Minister’s Questions.

Liberal Democrats leader Sir Ed Davey had asked whether “given the revelations about Royal Lodge” the Prime Minister believed that MPs should “properly scrutinise the Crown Estate to ensure taxpayers’ interests are protected”.

Andrew has lived in Royal Lodge in Windsor on a peppercorn rent since 2003, although he paid £1 million for the lease and a further £7.5 million for refurbishments.

Downing Street has backed calls for Andrew to go to the police with any information he has relating to paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein’s activities.

In a statement to the Commons, Sir Lindsay said: “I know there has been some commentary on what members of this House may or may not discuss in the chamber in relation to Prince Andrew, some of which is inaccurate.

“There is understandably great interest from members and from the public on this matter. For the benefit of the House, I would like to be clear that there are ways for the House to properly consider this matter.

“Any discussions about the conduct or reflections on members of the royal family can be properly discussed on the substantive motions. And I know some members have already tabled such a motion. I am not able to allocate time for a debate on such a motion, but others are able to do so, if wishing to do that.

“But on questions, the long-standing practice of the House, as set out in Erskine May, is that criticism of members of the royal family cannot be made as part of questions. I hope this is helpful clarification, as there is lots of online speculation.”

Polling by Ipsos conducted earlier this week found 88% believe it was right for Andrew to give up his titles.

More than half of those asked believe there should be an Act of Parliament to remove them. More than four fifths of Britons have a negative view of the prince.

Substantive motions can be tabled by the Government, opposition parties in opposition day debates, and by backbenchers through an application to the Backbench Business Committee.

Commons leader Sir Alan Campbell was asked on Thursday whether MPs would have time to debate a motion put forward by the Scottish National Party to create a new law to strip Andrew of his title.

A day earlier, York Central MP Rachael Maskell introduced a draft law to the Commons, which would allow the King to formally strip Andrew of his dukedom.

The proposed legislation would grant Parliament and the monarch the power to remove titles. Currently, an Act of Parliament is required to formally remove Andrew’s dukedom.

Leader of the SNP in Westminster, Stephen Flynn, said: “Following those revelations and indeed further allegations in the public domain, I have laid a motion before this House which calls on the Government to listen to Parliamentarians and to listen to the public and to listen to victims and take legislative action to remove the dukedom from Prince Andrew.

“When is the Government going to come forward with that legislation?”

Sir Alan said: “I know that there’s been speculation about legislation. But 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.”

Ms Maskell, who is sitting as an Independent after having the Labour whip removed, said: “It is time for Parliament to act so that it can, or the monarch can, remove titles.

“The Duke of York title may no longer be being used by its holder, but it has not been removed.

“My short Bill, The Removal of Titles Bill, will fix this; I hope it can now be supported by Parliament.”

The Bill stands little chance of becoming law without Government support, and ministers have resisted calls to act, insisting such decisions are for the King.