By Ned Simons - 4th May 2011
It is our duty to remove this gag, and to speak freely as citizens rather than being silenced as subjects
Paul Flynn MP
A Labour MP who attacked Commons rules that prevented him criticising the royal family was told his remarks were “inappropriate” in light of the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton.
Paul Flynn said that Commons rules allowed him to praise the royals but prohibited him from criticising them even though he was free to do so in broadcasts or on blogs in the outside world.
“In this House my mouth is bandaged by archaic rules that deny me the chance to be critical of certain individuals. I can be sycophantically, emetically in praise of those individuals—that is not limited in any way—but I am not allowed to criticise them,” he said.
While Flynn did not refer to the “individuals” by name it was clear he was talking about members of the royal family and more specifically, Prince Andrew.
Flynn has been critical of the Duke of York's position as Special Representative for International Trade and Investment following revelations about the prince's friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein as well as with authoritarian regimes.
The Newport West MP said it was “entirely irrational and anti-intellectual, and contrary to the debating freedoms” of the Commons that he was not allowed to repeat the criticism that appeared in national newspapers.
The Commons rule book, Erskine May, states: "Unless 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.
Flynn was speaking in the Commons in the early hours of this morning after MPs debated the Finance Bill until 4am.
He said: “In a grown-up, modern Parliament, no issue should be beyond our surveillance and, if necessary, our criticism. It is our duty to remove this gag, and to speak freely as citizens rather than being silenced as subjects.”
But Lib Dem minister Ed Davey told Flynn his comments were “inappropriate” in the light of last weekend's royal wedding and expressed support for the role of Prince Andrew as a trade envoy.
“I do not know what has motivated the hon. Gentleman,” he said.
“His timing is particularly inappropriate coming as it does four days after the royal wedding, when I believe the whole country showed the support that they give to the royal family and all its members."
He added: “I am proud to be here to support the role of His Royal Highness.
“I, for one, believe that the Duke of York does an excellent job as the UK’s special representative for international trade and investment. He promotes UK business interests around the world, and helps to attract inward investment.”
It is not the first time Flynn has raised the issue. He attempted to speak about the conduct of Prince Andrew in March but was prevented from speaking by the chair of the debate.
Article Comments
Well done Paul Flynn for highlighting this ridiculous and archaic law. Why should MPs be barred from expressing a viewpoint on the monarchy in Parliament? Surely this is the place where such debates and discussions should take place - or where else should they be discussed?
Tim Williams
4th May 2011 at 6:22 pm
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.