Downing Street refuses to make time for MPs to debate Prince Andrew’s conduct amid growing calls by MPs
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
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Royal source: Andrew allegations should be examined
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?”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Should MPs have a say on Prince Andrew?
👉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”.
The Bank of England is worried that a rise in financiers’ lending to data center lending may cause an AI bubble reminiscent of the dot-com crash in the early 2000s.
The rumored nomination of Michael Selig follows the CFTC nomination process hitting a snag in September when Brian Quintenz was withdrawn.
A reference to China being an “enemy” of the UK was removed from key evidence for a collapsed spy trial in 2023 as it “did not reflect government policy” under the Conservatives at the time, according to the national security adviser.
In the letter published by parliament’s Joint Committee on National Security Strategy earlier on Friday, National Security Adviser (NSA) Jonathan Powell said Counter Terror Police and the Crown Prosecution Service were aware of the change made by Deputy National Security Adviser (DSNA) Matt Collins.
This would mean the CPS knew the “enemy” reference had been removed before charging the two suspects, according to Mr Powell.
In another letter published on Friday, the director of public prosecutions (DPP) Stephen Parkinson told the committee that it took DSNA Mr Collins more than a year to confirm to prosecutors he would not say China posed a threat to UK national security in court.
Politics latest: Farage reacts after Reform defeated by Plaid
The DPP said a High Court judge ruled in June last year that an “enemy” under law is a state which “presently poses an active threat to the UK’s national security”, prompting the CPS to ask the DNSA whether China fulfilled that criteria.
He added prosecutors did not believe there would be “any difficulty in obtaining evidence” from Mr Collins that China was a national security threat, but added: “This was a sticking point that could not be overcome.”
Mr Parkinson added that the DNSA’s “unwillingness” to describe China as an active or current threat was “fatal to the case” because Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry’s defence teams would have been entitled to call him as a witness.
The DPP added: “This factor is compounded by the fact that drafts of the first witness statement, reviewed by us in July 2025, showed that references to China being an ‘enemy’ or ‘possible enemy’ had been deleted.
“Those drafts would probably have been disclosable to the defence.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
What do we know about the China spy case?
A final draft of Mr Collins’ statement was sent to then-prime minister Rishi Sunak in December 2023, Mr Powell’s letter said.
“Drafts of a statement provided to DNSA included the term ‘enemy’ but he removed this term from the final draft as it did not reflect government policy,” the letter reads.
Read more:
MI5 boss on threats from China
The three key questions about the China spy case that need to be answered
It comes amid a political row over the collapse of the prosecution of Christopher Berry and Christopher Cash last month, who were accused of conducting espionage for China.
Both individuals vehemently deny the claims.
Because the CPS was pursuing charges under the Official Secrets Act 1911, prosecutors would have had to show the defendants were acting for an “enemy”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
China spy row: Witness statements explained
DPP Mr Parkinson has come under pressure to provide a fuller explanation for the abandonment of the case.
He has blamed insufficient evidence being provided by the government that Beijing represented a threat to the UK at the time of the alleged offences.
The Conservatives have accused Sir Keir Starmer of letting the case collapse, but Labour has said there was nothing more it could have done.
The current government has insisted ministers did not intervene in the case or attempt to make representations to ensure the strength of evidence, for fear of interfering with the course of justice.
Sir Keir Starmer met Chinese premier Xi Jingping in November 2024. Pic: PA
The DNSA and DPP will face questions from the parliamentary committee on Monday afternoon.
The current attorney general, Lord Hermer, and the chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, Darren Jones, will be questioned on Wednesday.
The PM’s spokesman reiterated the government’s position that “what is relevant in a criminal case of this nature is the government’s position at the time of the alleged offences”.
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024