MPs 'censored' from royal criticism

Labour's Paul Flynn has said MPs are being unjustly banned from debating the conduct of the royal family by the rules of the House of Commons.

The Newport West MP was attempting to use time allocated to him in a Westminster Hall debate this afternoon to raise the issue of the conduct of Prince Andrew.

The Duke of York has been heavily criticised in recent days for his personal behaviour.

Flynn said his position as special trade representative has been debated in the media and on the blogs.

"Why on Earth should it be that the only people that have their mouths bandaged on this issue into silence be elected members?" he asked.

"Why on Earth shouldn’t we be free to talk about this matter of considerable interest and importance?

"There is nothing I can see in Erskine May on this, but if there is some special convention that we're not allowed to speak on this matter it should have a stake driven through its heart and buried today."

Flynn was speaking during a wider debate on the extent of parliamentary privilege, which protects MPs from having legal action taken against them for things they say in Parliament.

But Conservative MP Peter Bone, who was charing the session, warned Flynn that Erskine May, the Commons rule book, did contain rules that barred the MP from directly discussing the personal actions of the royals.

He said while the Labour MP could speak about the principle of whether the royals could be debated or not by MPs, the debate itself could not happen as it was not on what is known a "substantive motion".

"What we can't do is actually have the debate," he said.

The rule states: "Unlesss the discussion is based upon a substantive motion, drawn in proper terms, reflections must not be cast in debate upon the conduct of the Sovereign, the heir to the throne, or other members of the royal family"

A substantive motion is a debate in the Commons that results in a decision of the House.

This rule also applies to discussion of governor-generals of overseas territories, the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker, judges and MPs themselves.

But Flynn said he thought he had been given special permission by the chair of the backbench business committee, Natascha Engel, to deviate from that rule.

"I had an email from the chairman of the committee saying she had communicated with you and the minister responsible," he told Bone, who is a member of the committee himself.

"I was of the understanding under new procedures micro-debates of this kind, not entirely within the boundaries of the motions before us, would be allowed."

Flynn had said that he had earlier been told that it might be "unfair" to say anything that "might be derogatory" about royal family on the grounds they can't answer back.

"The person involved has been defended very adequately by the prime minister and the trade secretary," he said.

He said that the Duke of York had the "24 hour support of a tax payer funded royal spin machine working on his behalf" to back him up.

"If he's not defending himself he is being more than adequately defended by others."

Bone repeated that while Flynn was allowed to address the "principle and convention" of whether MPs could discuss the royals.

He added: "We can't go into substance because we are not allowed to".

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)