While a date is yet to be set for the inquiry, evidence sessions for “The Crown Estate, Property Leases with the Royal Family” are expected to start next year.

It means that royal finances will face fresh scrutiny in 2026, a year when a wider review of the public funding of the monarchy will also take place.

It is understood that there is no bar on who a House of Commons committee can invite to give evidence, including members of the royal family, but the committee will only consider which witnesses to call once they have established a remit for the information to be covered in the evidence session. In reality, it is unlikely that members of the royal family will be called to speak.

In responding to written questions from the PAC, whose remit is to assess the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of public spending, the Crown Estate said that while Mountbatten-Windsor was due to receive £488,342 in compensation for giving up his lease early, he was expected to forfeit that sum as the property was in a state of disrepair.

The body said that this would pay for “end of tenancy dilapidations and repairs required”, although it added that they were “not out of keeping with a tenancy of this duration”.

In a briefing to MPs on the PAC, the Crown Estate said that this “will mean in all likelihood that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor will not be owed any compensation for early surrender of the lease… once dilapidations are taken into account.”

The Crown Estate said “before this position can be fully validated, however, a full and thorough assessment must be undertaken post-occupation by an expert in dilapidation”.

Royal Lodge in Windsor Great Park

SHUTTERSTOCK EDITORIAL

The Crown Estate revealed that it paid for an independent architect to monitor refurbishment works, which were confirmed to have been carried out in accordance with the terms set out in the lease. Meanwhile, Andrew paid for a separate set of architects to represent him.

A meeting took place on November 12 between the Crown Estate and Andrew’s representatives “to begin to discuss the process for the formal surrender of Royal Lodge.”

The Crown Estate confirmed that Andrew had now served 12 months’ notice on his lease, the minimum period possible, which means that he can stay in the property until the end of October 2026.

Four out of the five properties under the control and management of The Crown Estate occupied by members of the Royal Family are on the Windsor Estate.

Information was also supplied on other royal “grace and favour” properties, which include Adelaide Cottage, the former home of the Prince and Princess of Wales.

In July, William and Kate took over the lease for Forest Lodge, a Grade II-listed Crown Estate property at Windsor.

• Why Kate wants Prince Andrew to move out of the lodge — fast

Despite being described in reports as a “forever home” for the couple, the lease assigned to William and Kate on the property is shown to be capped at 20 years at an “open market rent”.

The Crown Estate said: “Following an approach from HRH The Prince of Wales and discussions with the Royal Household, the commissioners were asked to consider entering into a lease of the property to TRH The Prince and Princess of Wales for use as their primary private residence”.

It added that “negotiations were conducted on an arm’s length basis, to ensure appropriate market terms were agreed”.

The lease for Bagshot Park, home to the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh, was renegotiated in 2007 for £5 million, as reported last week by The Times.

Protesters in Windsor in October after The Times revealed Andrew’s lease agreement

PETER NICHOLLS/GETTY IMAGES

Under Prince Edward’s agreement with the Crown Estate, he paid for refurbishments to Bagshot Park with permission to sublet a renovated stable block.

Meanwhile, Frogmore Cottage, the former home of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, is not seen to be under the control of the Crown Estate as it is annexed to Windsor Castle.

The responses to questions from the public accounts committee have prompted MPs to seek more information by means of a public inquiry into royal property deals.

It will focus on three aspects: correspondence between the committee, The Crown Estate and The Treasury, a report produced by the National Audit Office in 2005 and the annual report and accounts for the Crown Estate.

Announcing the inquiry, Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, chair of the PAC said: “We would like to thank the Crown Estate Commissioners and HM Treasury for their considered responses to our questions.

“In publishing these responses, the public accounts committee fulfils one of its primary purposes: to aid transparency in public-interest information, as part of its overall mission to secure value for money for the taxpayer.

“Having reflected on what we have received, the information provided clearly forms the beginnings of a basis for an inquiry. The National Audit Office (NAO) supports the scrutiny function of this committee.

“We now await the conclusions the NAO will draw from this information, and plan to hold an inquiry based on the resulting evidence base in the new year.”

In a letter to the Treasury and the Crown Estate, Clifton-Brown stated that Andrew’s changing status made it “reasonable” to ask whether the lease “justifies the minimal rent charged and that appropriate steps are being taken to enforce the terms of the contract to ensure proper maintenance of the property.”

The purpose of the exercise was, the committee said, to seek assurances about money spent on the property by the Crown Estate, whose purpose is “to create lasting and shared prosperity for the nation”.

In particular, they noted the “considerable and understandable public interest in the spending of public money” in relation to Andrew.

Dan Labbad, chief executive of the Crown Estate said: “We very much welcome the news of the committee’s inquiry. We have provided detailed answers to the committee’s questions to date and look forward to working with the NAO and responding to further questions to support the inquiry process.”