MPs' royal gag

Part two of my effort to have an intelligent discussion on the Royal Family in Parliament will take place on Tuesday the 3rd May. I abandoned Part one on March 17th when a Deputy Speaker refused to let me say what I wanted to say. I have agreed this time to abide strictly within parliament's standing orders. Later I will challenge their restrictions that bandage the mouths of MPs from criticising all members of the royal family.

I made the case for a debate in time allocated by the Backbench Business Committee (BBCom) to the Committee on 15 March 2011:

Q2 Chair: ... What we are looking for is an idea of why your debate is topical, how much time you are asking for, and where you want the debate to be.

Paul Flynn: Fine. The role of special trade representative is a matter of controversy, discussion and debate throughout the country, in the media, on blogs and so on, but apparently it is questionable whether we are allowed to discuss it at all in the House of Commons, because of the fact that our special trade representative is a member of the royal family. While our rules might be clear on the monarch, it is questionable whether we can be critical of a junior member of the royal family when allegations have been made that his conduct is harming the reputation of this country. A number of allegations have been made about him, perhaps the most serious being his association with emerging tyrannies in Europe, particularly Azerbaijan. While he may be adept in the trade area, there is criticism of his role in cosying up to people of this kind.

Q3 Chair: Rather than going into those details-I have not got a problem with that-what we are interested in is what kind of debate you wanted.

Paul Flynn: A half an hour debate would be enough to make the case and to test whether House rules allow us to make comments that would be necessarily critical of a member of the royal family.

 

In the mini debaters on 17 March 2011 I followed my opening remarks and said that “I want to talk about the conduct of our trade representative, Prince Andrew”.

Erskine May draws attention to the House’s rules on mentioning the Sovereign and the Royal Family in three separate places, first under the heading “Matters which may be raised only on a substantive motion”; second under the heading, “References to Queen in Debate”, which includes two sub-sections; and third under the heading, “Reflections on Sovereign, etc”. The three instances below.

“Matters which may be raised only on a substantive motion”;

Certain matters cannot be debated except on a substantive motion which allows a distinct decision of the House (pp 438-439). These include the conduct of the Sovereign, the heir to the throne or other members of the royal family, a Governor-General of an independent territory, the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means, Members of either House of Parliament and judges of the superior courts of the United Kingdom, including persons holding the position of a judge, such as a judge in a court of bankruptcy, a circuit court judge, or a recorder.  Such matters cannot therefore be raised by way of an amendment, or an adjournment motion.  For the same reason, no charge of a personal character in respect of these categories of person can be raised except on a direct and substantive motion.  No statement of that kind can be incorporated in a broader motion nor, for example, included in a reply to a question.

“References to Queen in Debate”

Disloyal or disrespectful reference to the Queen

Treasonable or seditious language or a disrespectful use of Her Majesty’s name are not permitted.  Members have not only been called to order for such offences, but have been reprimanded, committed to the custody of the Serjeant or even sent to the Tower.

Use of Queen’s name to influence debate

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. Where the Crown has a distinct interest in a measure, there is an authorised mode of communicating Her Majesty’s recommendation or consent, through one of her Ministers (see pp 708-710); but Her Majesty cannot be supposed to have a private opinion, apart from that of her responsible advisers; and any attempt to use her name in debate to influence the judgment of Parliament is immediately checked and censured. FN here.  This rule extends also to other members of the royal family, but is not strictly applied in cases where one of its members has made a public statement on matter of current interest so long as comment is made in appropriate terms.

A Minster is however, permitted to make a statement of facts in which the Sovereign’s name may be concerned.

“Reflections on Sovereign, etc”

Unless the discussion is based upon a substantive motion, drawn in proper terms (see pp386-387), 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.

In footnotes within the above extracts, Erskine May points to instances in the House when Members have been brought to order after mentioning the Monarch or other members of the Royal Family in debate.  I have set out the Speaker’s rulings cited at the points marked (*), from the second part of the second quotation (repeated below) in an Appendix:

... Her Majesty cannot be supposed to have a private opinion, apart from that of her responsible advisers; and any attempt to use her name in debate to influence the judgment of Parliament is immediately checked and censured. This rule extends also to other members of the royal family,* but is not strictly applied in cases where one of its members has made a public statement on matter of current interest so long as comment is made in appropriate terms.*

It is clear from the extracts from Erskine May that in order to consider matters relating to the conduct of a member of the Royal Family, a debate can only take place on a substantive motion.  There is currently no provision for debates to take place in Westminster Hall on substantive motions, so I do not think it would be possible to debate the subject there.

It may also be possible to discuss, in the House, the role and conduct of trade envoys without identifying Prince Andrew.  If this were possible, the question of trade envoys could be raised in an Adjournment debate (in the Chamber or Westminster Hall) or in parliamentary questions. The Clerks would be able to advise on whether this would be possible and on the types of comment that would be in order or not in order in such a debate.

 

As far as I know no-one has been imprisoned for being disrespectful to a member of the Royal Family. I do not intend to be the first. But I believe these restictions are archaic and unnecessary. Examples of others who take this view include:-

  

Appendix: Rulings on references to the Royal Family in debates in the House

Erskine May (23rd edition, p436) stated that:

... Her Majesty cannot be supposed to have a private opinion, apart from that of her responsible advisers; and any attempt to use her name in debate to influence the judgment of Parliament is immediately checked and censured. This rule extends also to other members of the royal family,*

At this point Erskine May cited two rulings HC Deb (1948-49) 464 c1924 and (1985-86) 88 c26.

The first exchange was:

[Mr Beattie] I want to bring out this point which it is very important this House should realise. Political propaganda is being made in every direction and by every means, including things that are held sacred in this country and what I would call the ideals of the people of this country. I want to tell this House that at the present moment the Minister of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland is arranging to have Princess Elizabeth and her husband, when they go to Belfast—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Gentleman is not allowed to discuss members of the Royal Family to influence opinion.

Mr Beattie: This visit is going to be made

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No reference must be made to any member of the Royal Family doing anything, as I have said.

Mr Beattie: I will accept that Ruling from you, Sir, and will proceed to the next complaint which I have to make. I was going to say that the tom-toms were to be out, and sectarian passions aroused with the possibility of a pogrom to follow—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is still making an indirect reference to the visit of the Royal Family. No reference is allowed to be made in this House to the Royal Family which is designed to affect argument. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to leave out all such references in his speech.

Mr Beattie: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I did not intend to make any reference to the Royal Family, either direct or indirect.

The second exchange was:

[Mr Hamilton] I was about to say that the report underlines and supports two opinions expressed by royal princes, Prince Philip and Prince Charles, on the very matters that I have raised.

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that we do not bring members of the Royal Family into our arguments in this place.

Erskine May (23rd edition, p436) continued that:

...but is not strictly applied in cases where one of its members has made a public statement on matter of current interest so long as comment is made in appropriate terms.*

At this point Erskine May cited HC (1988-89) 142 c32 and (1999-2000) 351 c521

The first citation was an example of a Member referring to a member of the Royal Family without censure:

[Paddy Ashdown] The Prime Minister quoted from the North sea summit of November 1987. I should like the right hon. Lady to contrast the attitude of her Secretary of State with the words of the Prince of Wales at that conference: If science has taught us anything, it is that the environment is full of uncertainty. It makes no sense to test it to destruction. While we wait for the doctor's diagnosis, the patient may easily die! A Government who were serious about combating the environmental threat would now join the 30 per cent. club. They would do more to promote energy conservation. They would use the power of the taxation system to provide real encouragement for the use of unleaded petrol. They would introduce legislation to improve control over vehicle emissions. They would tighten up the cross-border shipment of hazardous wastes. They would commit themselves to a decent policy for public transport. All those things could have been in the Government's programme, but none is.

In the second case, the Deputy Speaker allowed a Member’s comments but advised him to be cautious:

Mr Alan Simpson (Nottingham South): I am pleased that we are debating this subject in the week in which the royal family have also decided to wade into it. I shall particularly refer to comments made by the Duke of Edinburgh, but I only wish that he had had an opportunity to listen to the wise and thoughtful remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock).

[...]

The MOD has had to step in to fill the gap because the rest of society is running away from the issues and all that has stopped us becoming a laughing stock is the Duke's intervention. He has stepped in to create his own interesting distraction. It was up to him to make the decision, but he seems to be on particularly dangerous and thin ice in suggesting that there are dangers in cross-breeding with exotic foreign varieties. However, he was wrong to suggest that GM plant growing is no different from conventional plant breeding. Someone has to have a word with him. History does not bear out an analysis that a fish gene has not crossed with a soya bean because one likes polo and the other prefers rugger or one reads The Times and the other the Beano.

That sort of propagation—the ability of GM technology to produce new products—crosses all the frontiers that nature has ever set for us. That is the issue: not compatibility of interests, but the incompatibility of species. We have been presented with new challenges and we have to analyse the risk and consequences of new toxins being generated, new resistances being created and unexpected further transfers between species taking place. There is indifference to those threats. The Duke of Hazards has ploughed into the debate, leaping into his own car of convenience—

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has referred to a member of the royal family, which is legitimate to an extent, but he ought to be careful with the words he uses.

 

 

Comments

[arizona limousine]

The auto mechanic repair shop stocks tires for virtually every vehicle on the road.

[Paul Flynn]

Thanks. Gerald. The Sunday Times did a good piece about tomorrows debate.

Sent from my iPad

[Gerald]

Paul have no fear if you are the first MP to be imprisoned for being disrespectful to a member of the Royal Family I, and others, will start a petition calling for your release. Of course you will have to wait until after the Assembly election campaign has finished, but at least you'll have a few days to catch up on your writing.

[patrick]

"So lets see them all buried. Lets make that day a day of renown. There is so much killing to do that we will have to first of all hire fellas to dig graves and bury all these criminals."

This kind of statement wishing people to die can only possibly come from a religious nutjob.

[patrick]

Don't forget though Ad, God that created itself and everything in less than a week and only 6,000 years ago is still in re-hab.

In fact God is so physically and mentally exhausted and drained that genocides, famines, and multiple natural disasters are far too much of a pain to bother with.

[Ad]

Its almost funny. Such a cowardly subjugation based on what? Title? They are only animals which can be burned or drowned like anyone else.

Its rubbish to pretend these are our benevolent 'betters'. It is everyone for themself is the other side of the coin.

So lets see them all buried. Lets make that day a day of renown. There is so much killing to do that we will have to first of all hire fellas to dig graves and bury all these criminals.

Surely we have to decide whether we will stand against them. Because we have the right on our side. Afterwards God may give us victory.