Exhilarating, exhausting, satisfying.
Part two of my campaign to allow open discussion on royal matters. I had the adjournment debate yesterday. It was the result of considerable negotiation and, I hope, a step on the path to end a gag on MPs. We have been infantilised and denied the right to express a word of criticism of the Monarch and all her relatives. It is permitted to lavish emetic, sycophant praise on them. That's what happened. My speech was understated and did not mention Prince Andrew but criticised a job of importance that can be improved with open competition.
One person present at the debate said the Tories were annoyed because I did not go 'over the top' and give them a chance to put the boot in. The response by LibDem Minister Ed Davey was characteristically weak and idiotic. It consisted of a 'cut and paste' from Andrew's web site plus a complaint about my timing. My timing?
The Speaker said he would chair the debate. Adjournment debates are normally at 10.30 pm at the end of business. Yesterday's filibuster meant that the debate started at 4.05 am. I was amazed and grateful to see the Speaker sitting in his place. Below is E-politix and the Evening Standard's account of the debate and a Point of Order that I raised at lunchtime today.
E-Politix writes:
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.
Prince Andrew's special trade envoy job 'not an open one,' says Labour MP
4 May 2011 Evening Standard
There should be a competitive recruitment process for Prince Andrew's job as a special trade envoy, a Labour MP claimed today.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) said British ambassadors overseas were often best placed to set up meetings to promote UK companies.
Speaking within parliamentary guidelines banning MPs from criticising the Royal Family, Mr Flynn did not name the Duke of York, claiming his "mouth was bandaged by archaic rules".
He said the prince was appointed to the role of Special Representative for International Trade and Investment by the Queen after she had consulted Government ministers.
The job has left the taxpayer with a £4 million bill over the last decade, excluding security costs, he told the Commons, while the duke's role suggested British businesses used the "back door" to win contracts overseas.
"Is there a problem with the position at the moment?" Mr Flynn asked. "There certainly appears to be a problem about the lack of competition for the job.
"It's not an open one. There's no pre-appointment hearings or anything of that kind and there seems to be only one qualification for the job and that means membership of a certain family because the job was inherited from another member of that family. That deserves our concern."
But Tory Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) defended the prince. He said: "In my experience having done the shadow trade job, Prince Andrew goes around the world, opens a lot of doors, does a lot of trade for the UK, and I would have thought that your constituency needs the jobs that are created by businesses that export around the world."
Junior Business Minister Ed Davey also defended Prince Andrew. He told MPs: "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 to Britain.
"He's had long-standing success in the role, representing the continued interest by the Royal Family in supporting British business and international trade and investment.
"Since taking on this role the Duke of York has built a substantial network of contacts at high level in both government and business overseas.
"These linkages help the duke make a major impact in a range of markets around the world. Many who have worked with the duke have found he's a real asset for our country in supporting UK business."
Mr Davey added: "I think his timing is particularly inappropriate, four days after the royal wedding when I believe the whole country showed the support they give to the Royal Family and all its members.
"I'm proud to be here supporting the role of His Royal Highness tonight.
Point of Order
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As Many Members were inexplicably absent at 4.30 this morning, they will have missed an important debate that drew attention to a great weakness in our role: we are able to heap praise on certain individuals, but we are forbidden the privilege of everyone outside the House to be critical of those individuals. Can you suggest a way in which we can ensure that that rule, which demeans the office of MP, is changed and we can enjoy the freedom of everyone outside the House to be critical of anyone when necessary?
Mr Speaker: Criticism of the kind and in the direction that the hon. Gentleman has in mind can always be made on a substantive motion. That is the specific solution to the problem that he has just identified. More widely, if he is concerned, as I know he is, about the current Standing Orders and seeks their reform, it is open to him to seek support for such a proposition across the House. I must leave it there for today.
Unimportant issues?
That's how we ended up at the end of the 20th century with a bunch of landed gentry still ruling the roost in the upper chamber of the British Parliament.
More power to Paul Flynn's elbow in his pursuit of 'unimportant issues'!
Posted by: Hendre | May 05, 2011 at 12:43 PM
There is no major party party that would ever take Britain out of the EU. None of them will give the voters a referendum. That's the reality of the limits on democracy.
The verdict on today's referendum sadly will be 'The lies have it. The ;lies have it.
Posted by: Paul Flynn | May 05, 2011 at 08:55 AM
MUCH more important than say, asking why Bob Crow's idiots are disrupting London, whilst due judicial process is still in operation, or why the voting system of this country needs reform, or wheter we should still be in the EU or why the tories continue EVERY TIME to emulate Labour's worst policies (Defence (what's that?) Education, Transport, Food Security) or corruption iside all main political parties.
Keep up the god work of unimportant diversionary issues....
Posted by: Greg Tingey | May 05, 2011 at 08:29 AM