Sir Keir Starmer has backed his under-fire safeguarding minister to continue leading the government’s efforts to set up a national inquiry into grooming gangs after four survivors demanded her resignation.

The prime minister said on Thursday that Jess Phillips has “devoted vast parts of her life and career” to tackling violence against women and girls, and has “confidence in her”, despite the turmoil that has beset the process.

All four survivors who quit the government’s grooming gangs inquiry panel said they will consider returning to the process if Ms Phillips resigns.

Politics latest: ‘Progress’ that returning small boat migrant was identified

However, five other survivors on the panel have written to Sir Keir to say they will only stay if Ms Phillips remains.

They said she had remained impartial, had listened to feedback and her previous experience to reduce violence against women and girls and her “clear passion and commitment is important to us”.

In contrast to the four who have quit, who accused Ms Phillips of trying to expand the inquiry’s scope beyond grooming gangs, the five said it needs to be widened to focus on child sexual exploitation as a whole to ensure survivors who do not fit “the generalised stereotype” are not excluded.

In response to the demand for Ms Phillips to quit, Sir Keir said: “The safeguarding minister has huge experience in issues relating to violence against women and girls. She’s devoted vast parts of her life and career to that, and so I do have confidence in her and Louise Casey in leading this project.”

Speaking to ITV Meridian, the prime minister also sought to reassure the victims of grooming, saying: “It’s really important that the national inquiry gets to the truth. All survivors deserve answers to their questions.”

“It is very important that I say to all survivors that I give my personal assurance that this inquiry will go wherever it needs to go, the scope will not be changed.”

It is understood Downing Street has reached out to the four survivors who quit the government’s process this week.

Samantha, one of the survivors who wrote the letter saying they would only stay if Ms Phillips remains, told Sky News: “We shouldn’t be falling apart right now, we should be working together.

“Jess has only ever been fair and honest with us, she’s told us as much as she possibly can within her capacity.

“She’s provided a lot of support over the phone and in-person to a lot of us survivors behind the scenes, which people don’t see about Jess.

“So I do still want her to be part of this inquiry up until the end.”

A government source told Sky News the government will be talking to all survivors on the panel about their concerns and opinions on the type of person they want to chair the inquiry, after the leading candidate dropped out following concerns from survivors over his background as a police officer.

The government will move as fast as possible, they said, but it will likely take months to appoint the right chair.

Why four survivors quit the inquiry

The four women who resigned this week expressed concerns about how the process of selecting a chair and setting the terms of reference of the national inquiry into grooming gangs is being run.

They wrote on Wednesday to Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, calling for Ms Phillips to step down and all survivors to be consulted on appointing a senior judge as chair with no major conflicts of interest.

Ms Phillips told parliament on Tuesday that suggestions that the scope of the inquiry was to be expanded from just grooming gangs were “categorically untrue”.

But leaked consultation documents and texts between the safeguarding minister and survivor Fiona Goddard show the survivors’ concerns that the scope would be expanded were valid.

The survivors’ letter says: “Being publicly contradicted and dismissed by a government minister when you are a survivor telling the truth takes you right back to that feeling of not being believed all over again.

“It is a betrayal that has destroyed what little trust remained.”

They have demanded that the scope of the inquiry remain “laser-focused” on grooming gangs and called for victims to be free to speak to support networks without fear of reprisal.

The letter to Ms Mahmood says: “Her [Ms Phillips’] conduct over the last week has shown she is unfit to oversee a process that requires survivors to trust the government. Her departure would signal you are serious about accountability and changing direction.”

The survivors describe their demands as “the absolute bare minimum for survivors to trust that this inquiry will be different from every other process that has let us down”.

Frontrunner quits over ‘toxicity’

The letter was sent hours after one of the frontrunners to become chair of the inquiry withdrew, blaming “vested interests” and “political opportunism and point-scoring”.

Ex-police chief and child protection specialist Jim Gamble told the home secretary in a letter there was a “highly charged and toxic environment” around the appointment process and victims “deserve better”.

The other, Annie Hudson, a former social worker, said earlier this week she no longer wanted to be considered after intense media coverage.

The prime minister launched the inquiry into grooming gangs after an audit by Baroness Louise Casey showed the scale of the problem.

It is understood that the government is exploring a range of other candidates and will provide an update in due course.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “The grooming gang scandal was one of the darkest moments in this country’s history.

“That is why this government is committed to a full, statutory, national inquiry to uncover the truth. It is the very least that the victims of these hideous crimes deserve.

“We are disappointed that candidates to chair that inquiry have withdrawn. This is an extremely sensitive topic, and we have to take the time to appoint the best person suitable for the role.

“The home secretary has been clear – there will be no hiding place for those who abused the most vulnerable in our society.”

The government is refusing to make time in parliament for MPs to debate the conduct of Prince Andrew amid a flood of new allegations against him.

The prime minister’s spokesperson told reporters: “Prince Andrew has already confirmed he will not use his titles.

“We support the decision made by the Royal Family, and we know the Royal Family would not want to take time from other important issues.”

The only way for MPs to discuss the disgraced royal’s friendship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his peppercorn rent for a mansion would be for the government to make time in the parliamentary timetable.

Politics latest: Starmer says he has ‘confidence’ in Jess Phillips

Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle has said there is no ban on MPs discussing the conduct of a member of the Royal Family, but it would have to be on a “substantive motion” rather than during regular question time sessions.

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.

In response to repeated questions from journalists about why Number 10 was blocking a debate in the main chamber, the spokesman said: “I don’t accept that. Any decision by committees to scrutinise developments are a matter for them.”

Asked whether No 10 viewed it as a waste of parliamentary time to discuss Andrew’s lease of the Royal Lodge on a peppercorn rent, the spokesperson said: “That’s not what I’ve said.”

The chair of parliament’s Public Accounts Committee, Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, said in a statement on Thursday that they will be “writing in the coming days to the Crown Estate Commissioners and HM Treasury, seeking further information on the lease arrangements for Royal Lodge”.

“We will review the response we receive to our forthcoming correspondence, and will consider at that time whether to seek further information,” he added.

The prime minister’s spokesperson said earlier that Sir Keir Starmer “supports proper scrutiny of the crown estates and all uses of taxpayers’ money”, and appeared to back a committee investigation during Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday.

Calls for dukedom to be revoked

Pressure has been rapidly increasing on the King’s brother – who announced last week he would stop using his Duke of York title and his knighthood – after revelations in the posthumous memoir of his sex accuser, Virginia Giuffre.

Reports also emerged over the weekend that claimed Prince Andrew asked a royal close protection officer to “dig up dirt” on the late Ms Giuffre.

As a result of these new allegations, the Metropolitan Police said it is “actively looking into the claims”.

There are growing calls for his dukedom to be formally revoked, which can only be done by an act of parliament, and for him to give up his 30-room Royal Lodge home in Windsor Great Park after it emerged he paid a peppercorn rent for more than 20 years.

‘We are guided by the palace’

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 formally strip Andrew of his dukedom.

The leader of the SNP in Westminster, Stephen Flynn, said: “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?”

👉Listen to Politics at Sam and Anne’s on your podcast app👈

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.”

Prince Andrew has repeatedly and vehemently denied the claims against him made by the late Ms Giuffre.

But a Buckingham Palace source has told Sky News that the “new allegations that have been brought up” are of “very serious and grave concern” and “should be examined in the proper and fullest ways”.

A long-awaited definition of Islamophobia is expected within weeks – and a former faith minister is urging the government to adopt it in full.

It is expected that the government will move away from the word “Islamophobia”, instead replacing it with “anti-Muslim hostility”.

But Lord Khan, who oversaw the start of the review into the definition, told Sky News the government must adopt the full new definition to tackle hate against Muslims.

The Labour peer, who was faith minister until the September reshuffle, told Sky News: “I hope it’s a clear definition which reflects the terms of reference which protects people, and it’s clear.

“There’s so many definitions out there, this is an opportunity to address the big problem in our communities.

“I would request and urge the government to adopt the definition which fits within the terms of reference on what we wanted to do when we embarked on the process.

“It’s a strong message to our communities that the work that should be done isn’t being done – these are lived experiences and I am one of those people who has suffered.”

Chaired by former Conservative minister Dominic Grieve, an independent working group has been looking at whether to produce a new definition of Islamophobia since February as part of a government bid to tackle the rise in hate crimes towards British Muslims.

Its aim was to “define unacceptable treatment, prejudice, discrimination and hate targeting Muslims or anyone who is perceived to be Muslim”.

From the beginning, ministers have insisted that any new definition would not infringe on freedom of speech, that it would protect the right to criticise, express dislike of, or insult religions and it would not pave the way for blasphemy laws to pass “through the back door”.

In 2021, Labour adopted a working definition of Islamophobia from a cross-party group supported by Wes Streeting, which said: “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”

This old definition has formed the basis of the Conservatives’ concern with the government’s policy on this new one.

Read more: ‘Most dangerous’ time to be Muslim in UK, monitor says

Tory shadow equalities minister Claire Coutinho told Sky News: “I think we all need to be equal in the law and there is already protection in the law – if you are a victim of violence or harassment based on your religion – those protections are already in place.

“What I deeply worry about is putting one group on a pedestal and giving them special protections because that will only breed resentment.”

When pressed on why other protected groups should have a definition, she said: “With the antisemitism definition, there was an international consensus and it was combating a specific thing, which was Holocaust denial.

“If you look at this definition, it’s based on an earlier version and one of the things it said in 2018 was that even talking about the grooming gangs was a form of anti-Muslim hatred.”

British Muslims say they still face discrimination – and without a specific definition of Islamophobia, crimes can often go underreported. According to multiple monitoring groups, hate crimes have gone up significantly, with Home Office data showing a surge of 20% last year, making Muslims the target in nearly half of religion-based offences.

However, policy groups say the result of adopting a definition could be a “fundamental social and structural change” by the back door, without democratic consent.

The Policy Exchange thinktank claimed that if the government adopts a fixed definition, activists will use it to challenge counter-terrorism laws and undermine the Prevent programme, which aims to steer people away from extremism.

👉Listen to Politics at Sam and Anne’s on your podcast app👈

Ministers are set to decide in the coming weeks on what they will adopt in the report and whether it will be published, with Communities Secretary Steve Reed formally making the announcement when that decision is made.

A Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government spokesperson said: “We do not comment on leaks. The department is carefully considering the independent Working Group’s advice on a definition of anti-Muslim hatred/Islamophobia, and no government decisions have been made.

“We will always defend freedom of speech, including fiercely protecting the right to criticise, express dislike of, or insult religions and the beliefs and practices of those who follow them. This will remain at the front of our minds as we review the definition.”