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 arrangements on the 30-room mansion.
The King’s brother is said to be in talks with Charles’s representatives about leaving the property voluntarily following renewed controversy over his links to paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.
In a letter published 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 said.
He asked “that you write to us providing an update on the status of, and rationale for, the lease”.
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.”
The Treasury and the Crown Estate have been contacted for comment.
