MP lobbies for Commons debate on Prince Andrew

MPs should be free to criticise Prince Andrew and other royals in the Commons, a Labour backbencher has said.

Paul Flynn warned a recent ruling by the Speaker had left it unclear what the rules were governing what MPs were permitted to say about the Royal Family on the floor of the House.

Yesterday the Newport West MP petitioned the backbench business committee to grant him a half hour debate in the Commons on the behaviour of UK trade representative Prince Andrew.

He said the debate would be a test case for whether Commons rules allowed MPs to make "critical" comments of the royals.

Prince Andrew has come under intense pressure over his friendship with convicted sex-offender and his alleged relationship with corrupt regimes, raising questions about his suitability as a representative of British industry abroad.

The affair has proved embarrassing for the government and Buckingham Palace as it threatens to overshadow the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton.

Flynn said as the story was a "matter of controversy and debate throughout the country and in the media", MPs should be given a chance to let the feelings be known.

"But apparently it's questionable whether we are allowed to discuss it at all as a Commons because the special trade representative is a member of the Royal Family," he said.

"It's questionable whether we can be critical of a junior member of the Royal Family when allegations have been made his conduct are harming the reputation of this country."

Flynn said the prince's "association with emerging tyrannies in Europe, particularly Azerbaijan" should be examined, even if he is "adept" and promoting British industry abroad.

Last week the Speaker admonished Chris Bryant during a Commons debate after the shadow foreign minister said Prince Andrew should be sacked as a trade envoy as he was a "very close friend of Saif Gaddafi" and "a close friend of the convicted Libyan gun smuggler Tarek Kaituni".

"Is it not time that we dispensed with the services of the Duke of York?" Bryant asked.

The Speaker ticked Bryant off, telling him that references to members of the Royal Family should be "very rare, very sparing and very respectful".

"We have to be very careful in our handling of these matters, and I hope that we will be," he added.

But picking up the point soon after, Bryant said the only passage he could find related to the royals in Erskine May, the Commons rule book, was that:

"The irregular use of the Queen's name to influence a decision of the House is unconstitutional in principle and inconsistent with the independence of Parliament."

Bryant added: "I presume it must therefore still be perfectly possible for us to criticise members of the royal family when they play a particular role as a trade ambassador for this country on behalf of UK Trade & Investment."

John Bercow conceded that there was no rule that banned MPs from criticising royals other than the Queen herself.

But the Speaker appeared to remain uneasy about it overt criticism of the monarchy.

He said: "I emphasised the importance of treating these matters with great care, and said that on the whole it is preferable if references to members of the royal family are both sparing and respectful."

Flynn said backbench MPs should also examine whether the role of UK trade representative should be handed out "on merit or on the hereditary principle".

The members of the backbench committee, who allocate topics for debate in the Commons, are considering Flynn's petition.

The matter may be raised during tomorrow afternoon's Westminster Hall debate on the Bill of Rights and MPs' freedom of communication.

Article Comments

Have your say...

Please enter your comments below.

Name

Your e-mail address

Listen to audio version

Please type in the letters or numbers shown above (case sensitive)