Franz Fayot, MP of the Luxembourg Socialist Workers’ Party (LSAP) and president of the parliamentary budgetary control committee, in an interview on Tuesday criticised the ambiguity of the Grand Duke’s private and public roles while voicing concern over PM Luc Frieden’s stance on royal finances. Fayot took particular issue with the way in which Frieden addressed the parliamentary committee about the Auditors’ Court report regarding the expenditures of the Grand Ducal Court from 2021/2022, adding that the PM needlessly politicised the issue.
Against the backdrop of the Waringo report published five years ago, which laid bare the inner workings of the Grand Ducal Court, Fayot praises some improvements at the Court, such as the reinforcement of the Court Marshall’s role. However, various irregularities within the structure still need to be clarified, he assessed, particularly the ambiguity regarding the public and private activities of the Grand Ducal family.
In this regard, Fayot mentioned royal visits to Luxembourg as an example of this ambiguity, stressing that there must be clear criteria to distinguish between the Grand Duke as a private person and the Grand Duke in his official representative role. Better criteria would entail a clearer usage of public funds for the official activities of the Grand Ducal family, Fayot noted.
Greater use of personnel is thought to be another driving factor behind the expenditure increase. Fayot made clear that the problematic aspect of this lies in the absence of transparency, with staff employed for Court activities often attributed to other state administrations, including the police and the army. Fayot argued that Court expenditures for 2022 would have been €20 million instead of €15 million if these were registered correctly.
Asked about the expenses related to Hereditary Prince Guillaume’s future plans to build an annexe to the main residence of the Grand Ducal family, Berg castle, Fayot remarked that he is expecting an answer from a parliamentary question penned by him with regard to the future construction. He voiced criticism at the special treatment the future Grand Duke has received, as the General Development Plan (PAG) that regulates land use at the municipal level will have to be amended to authorise the new construction.
While making clear that the new building will be financed with private funds, Fayot remains concerned about the possibility that the plot of land will be granted to Prince Guillaume, questioning whether the Grand Ducal family will pay for a building lease.
An additional problem pointed out in the special report by the Court of Auditors is the Court’s inventory, with only 10% of assets being inventoried since the publication of the Waringo report. Fayot explained that while some clarification has been provided – an outdated software is currently used for the inventory of assets – he calls for further means to be invested in the inventory process, highlighting the importance of the Grand Ducal archives and library.
A more ambitious approach needs to be applied, according to Fayot.
Addressing the issue of the transparency between the public and private activities of the Grand Duke, Fayot criticised Frieden’s stance, namely what he interprets as Frieden’s nonchalance regarding the difficulty of separating the Grand Duke’s public and private roles. Fayot considers this a development that goes against the trend of regulation followed by other constitutional monarchies.
Asked about the influence of the Christian Social People’s Party (CSV) in this new approach to the Grand Ducal Court, Fayot expressed concerns and called for a framework with clear criteria and rules under the surveillance of the Chamber and the rule of law.
