The shocking new allegations about the extent of Prince Andrew’s connections with Jeffery Epstein have dominated front pages and airwaves but there is one powerful institution which is effectively barred from discussing it – parliament.
There is growing disquiet among MPs about strict guidance that means the disgraced royal cannot be the subject of any parliamentary debate – including whether he can be formally stripped of his titles.
Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader at Westminster, pushed on Monday for the government to bring forward its own motion to strip Prince Andrew of his title, saying there was “no justification” for inaction. The Labour MP Rachael Maskell also backed calls for legislation, but parliamentary rules mean that individual MPs cannot raise it themselves without facing sanction.
There may be a small loophole for MPs to ask about the funding of royal residences – Andrew still has use of the 30-room Royal Lodge, which is owned by the crown estate and for which he has a private tenancy agreement – but any debate is very likely to be tightly restrained.
Neither the Speaker’s Office or the House of Commons will go on the record to even explain its conventions about debates concerning the royals. No 10 has no appetite to take any proactive action to formally strip Andrew of his titles. “I cannot think of anything less which I’d like us to be embroiled in,” one government source said.
There is no indication that the palace will ask MPs to formally revoke Prince Andrew’s title as Duke of York – which the energy secretary, Ed Miliband, said would be a poor use of parliament’s time. In fact, the time taken would be minimal. A two-line bill revoking the titles could be done in an afternoon if needs be.
Keir Starmer’s spokesperson stopped short of defending the status quo that MPs cannot debate the Prince Andrew affair, though said it was ultimately a matter for parliament. “We would always welcome debate, which is the right of the democratic society,” Starmer’s spokesperson said.
In Erskine May, the bible of parliamentary rules, it says: “No question can be put which brings the name of the sovereign or the influence of the crown directly before parliament, or which casts reflections upon the sovereign or the royal family … Questions are, however, allowed on such matters as the costs to public funds of royal events and royal palaces.”
There is a possibility for a “substantive motion” to be put on the conduct of a royal – which would most probably be one tabled by the government or opposition, neither likely in this case.
Beyond that, Erskine May says “reflections must not be cast in debate upon the conduct of the sovereign, the heir to the throne, or other members of the royal family” – a rule that would specifically bar any MP making a comment on Prince Andrew’s conduct, even with regards to the victims of Epstein and the allegations made against the prince himself in the memoir by Virginia Giuffre. The prince denies all of these allegations.
There have even been restrictions on early day motions – where technically criticism of the conduct of a royal should be permitted in some circumstances.
In living memory, Prince Andrew’s disgrace is as serious as it gets for a royal. There are MPs in parliament who have made their careers defending the rights of victims and survivors of sexual abuse.
It could be assumed some individuals would be prepared to risk parliamentary sanction to raise the issue on the floor of the Commons or the Lords – just to make the point about the silencing of parliament, whatever the sound constitutional reasons might be.
However, the appetite for conflict over the issue is low among new Labour MPs, fretting more about the budget, Send reform and the dire party poll ratings than any scandal on the other side of St James’s Park. But the reality is that with Andrew’s rock bottom popularity, sanctioning him might be one of the more popular things this government could do.
