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.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:09
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.
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
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”.
Lucy Powell’s had quite the political comeback. Sacked from cabinet by the prime minister but weeks ago, she’s back with her own powerbase and voice at the top of the party as the deputy Labour leader.
She was not Keir Starmer‘s choice and, while the prime minister was quick to embrace her on Saturday as the result was announced, he is probably right to feel some unease about the outcome for a few different reasons.
For in Powell, the party has a new, alternative figurehead that sits outside of the government machine.
Image: The PM congratulates Lucy Powell after she is announced as new deputy leader. Pic: PA
She ran a campaign in which she pledged to be the voice of the membership to the leadership and the membership picked her. She will have serious influence on the National Executive Committee, and sit in the political cabinet.
What she won’t do is return to the cabinet table, which means that she has power and profile, but will remain an independent voice, free from collective cabinet responsibility.
More on Keir Starmer
Related Topics:
As I understand it, Powell doesn’t want to destabilise the leadership – for now at least.
She will take a submarine approach when it comes to interventions around government policy rather than offering a running commentary on Starmer’s government and choose her battles.
That way, when she does weigh in, she is harder to ignore.
She could also over time become a lightning rod for discontent should the party’s fortunes remain as parlous as they are now.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
5:27
Powell aims to unite Labour Party
On Friday, Labour suffered a cataclysmic defeat in the Caerphilly by-election, coming third in a seat it has held for over a century as Labour endured their biggest ever drop in support in a Welsh by-election.
It’s a terrible omen for next May’s Sennedd election. Labour have been the governing party in Wales since the Senedd’s beginning in 1999. That could be about to change.
When I asked Keir Starmer about the loss on Friday, he didn’t try to deflect, saying: “I’m deeply disappointed by the results.”
When I asked him if it was a gut punch, he said: “I’m not going to suggest otherwise. I spoke to the first minister on Saturday morning, and clearly we need to reflect and regroup, and double down on the delivery, in Wales. And we clearly need to do much more.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:15
Phillipson: Powell has my full support
Powell’s position now is that the party needs to pull together, get campaigning and try to build support with their voters.
But she is equally clear that this has to be down to delivery of the “national renewal” Labour promised voters in the election of 2024.
There will surely come a point, further down the road, where this new deputy leader will become more robust in her critique of the government if it fails to deliver and the party suffers.
This race has also exposed the ugliness in a party that is uneasy with its leadership and seems intent on infighting.
The constant briefing wars that emanate from Number 10 cascade down in what has been, at times, a dirty fight.
Lucy Powell accused Bridget Phillipson’s team of “throwing mud” and briefing against her in the Labour deputy leadership race on our Electoral Dysfunction podcast, while Phillipson also said she was at the sharp end of vicious smears.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
For all the talk on Saturday for coming together and unity, it is hard to see that materialising while doubts persist over Starmer’s leadership and while rivals, such as Powell’s close ally Andy Burnham, are waiting in the wings.
There is also the big question of apathy. Only 16.6% of party members, trade union members and affiliates chose to vote in this election, against 59% in 2020.
This is partly distorted because in the last leadership election, members were voting for both the leader and deputy leaders. But what it also suggests is disengagement from the wider Labour movement.
In 2020, there were 552,000 party members eligible to vote, out of a total membership which stood at 782,000, including union-affiliated members who are perhaps less likely to cast a vote.
This time around there were 970,000 eligible voters – but the Labour Party did not reveal how many actual party members cast a vote.
This might be because membership figures are dropping, and it didn’t want to reveal that information. At the end of last year, party membership stood at 332,000, which is around 200,000 members less than the end of 2019.
For now, Powell insists that she and Starmer will work as a team and the message from both Powell and the PM following her victory is that all of those party must put its shoulder to the wheel to try and see off the threat of Reform.
She is undoubtedly starting out as the party’s campaigner in chief, but I suspect she may become a far more critical – and dangerous – voice, if Starmer looks like he can’t get the party in good enough shape to win the next general election.
Lucy Powell has been elected as the deputy leader of the Labour Party.
But who is she and what does she stand for?
Powell began her career in politics working for Labour MPs Glenda Jackson and Beverley Hughes.
She then worked for a pro-EU campaign group.
After that, she ran Ed Miliband’s successful Labour leadership campaign and was his deputy chief of staff until she was elected as the MP for Manchester Central in 2012.
She has been at the forefront of Labour politics for over a decade, serving under Ed Miliband, Jeremy Corbyn and Keir Starmer.
After Labour won the last general election, she was appointed as the leader of the House of Commons in Starmer’s cabinet.
But last month she was sacked in the cabinet reshuffle and came to be seen as the anti-Starmer candidate.
During the deputy leadership campaign, Powell promised to “provide a stronger, more independent voice” for members of the Labour Party.
And in her acceptance speech, she said the government hadn’t been bold enough, and that it needed to step up.
So how much of a problem is she going to be for Keir Starmer?
Her new role – and being outside the cabinet – means she will be free to criticise the government, which could make life more difficult for the prime minister.
Powell has been outspoken about her desire for the government to lift the two child benefit cap – and also called for the country to work for the many and not the few – a Corbyn-era slogan – and that Labour must stop handing the megaphone over to Reform and letting them run away with it.
Starmer will be conscious that an MP he sacked not long ago is now in a powerful role able to speak freely and attack his decisions.
But Powell is not free from her own controversies.
In May, Lucy Powell called grooming gangs a dog whistle issue – something she later had to clarify after it caused outrage among campaigners and opposition parties.
She also vocally defended Labour’s unpopular cut to winter fuel allowance while in cabinet, before the government then U-turned on the policy – she then criticised the proposed welfare cuts after she was sacked from government.
Powell insists she wants to help Keir Starmer, providing constructive criticism and a voice for Labour members.
“Division and hate are on the rise. Discontent and disillusionment widespread.” What she meant: The Labour government has been a huge disappointment.
“The desire for change is impatient and palpable.” What she meant: You’ve had 16 months to deliver change – voters are saying, “Get on with it”.
“We have to offer hope, to offer the big change the country’s crying out for.” What she meant: Stop tinkering. Get more radical. You’ve got a huge Commons majority, after all.
“We must give a stronger sense of purpose, whose side we’re on and of our Labour values and beliefs.” What she meant: We’re not doing enough for working people or tackling inequality.
“People feel that this government is not being bold enough in delivering the kind of change we promised.” What she meant: Our voters are deserting us because they don’t see change.
“I’ll be a champion for all Labour values and boldness in everything we do.” What she meant: Watch out! I’m going to hound you and hold your feet to the fire!
“We won’t win by trying to out-Reform Reform, but by building a broad progressive consensus.” What she meant: Stop the lurch to the Right on immigration. We’re better than that.
“It starts with wrestling back the political megaphone and setting the agenda more strongly.” What she meant: We need to sharpen up our communication and selling our message.
“We’ve let Farage and his ilk run away with it.” What she meant: The Reform UK leader is running rings round us in communicating and campaigning. We’re too sluggish and flat-footed.
“For too long the country and the economy has worked in the interests of the few and not the many.” What she meant: Winter fuel payment cuts were a disaster and the two-child benefit cap has to go.
“Trickle down economics hasn’t worked.” What she meant: No more tax cuts for the rich. It’s time for a wealth tax, for example, to redistribute wealth.
“Life has just got harder and harder, less and less secure in work, in housing, in making ends meet.” What she meant: We’re failing to tackle the cost of living crisis and housing shortages.
“The deep-seated inequalities that have widened in wealth in regions in class in health need fundamentally redressing.” What she meant: We’re failing to look after our “red wall” voters.
“Re-unite our voter coalition and re-unite the country.” What she meant: Start governing for everyone, urban and rural, rich and poor, North and South. Stop neglecting poorer regions.
“We need to step up.” What she meant: For goodness sake, sort out the chaos in 10 Downing. Stop blaming aides and civil servants and sacking them. Get a grip!
Members and affiliates “don’t feel part of the conversation or party of the movement right now. And we have to change that.” What she meant: Stop ignoring and alienating activists, MPs and unions.
“Unity and loyalty comes from collective purpose, not from command and control.” What she meant: Stop the control freakery in parliament and party management. It’ll backfire.
“Debating, listening and hearing is not dissent. It’s all strength.” What she meant: Listen to your backbenchers and stop suspending them when they vote against policies like welfare cuts.
“As your deputy, my commitment is to change the culture.” What she meant: I’m going to stand up for rebels and critics and force you to ditch the control freakery and bad decisions.
“At the election 16 months ago the British people voted for change. I’m here to do everything I can to make that change a reality.” What she meant: Raise your game, or else!
She said it all with a smile, but there was menace there.
As deputy leader, Lucy Powell was always going to be a critical friend. So there you go, prime minister. Here’s 20 things you need to do for her to be more friend than critic.