Thrice I have tried to raise the subject of the unsuitability of Prince Andrew as our Trade Envoy. In our infantilised parliament I was thrice forbidden to criticise him. It’s a scandal, but MPs mouths are bandaged into silence.
Will we soon see a job advert?
There are no wages, but a bill for a 3 day trip costing £60,000 will be paid. You can even jack up the selling price for your house by £3 million. The only essential qualification applicants need is blue blood flowing through their veins. It’s a royal perk that Prince Andrew inherited from a relative.
Being the UK’s Trade Envoy is a key post for the UK's trade and jobs. Prince Andrew has been savagely criticised as a poor jobs ambassador who has let the country down.
His ten years in this role have cost the taxpayer £4million, not including the costs of royal protection officers. His indiscriminate sucking-up to a catalogue of some of the world’s crooks and fixers suggests that he is unfit for the job. Tom Porteous, UK director of Human Rights Watch said Prince Andrew was making the UK "look stupid".
This is a hot topic in all media, pubs and blogs. But it’s omerta in parliament – the only place that can do something about it. The accusations against Prince Andrew must be forensically examined- preferably by a Commons Select Committee. The qualification for the job should be extended beyond the hereditary principle to include skills in diplomacy and expertise on trade.
The antique rules of the Commons frustrated my attempt to debate this on Thursday. Idiotically parliament is generally forbidden to do anything but lavishly praise the royals – major and minor. This reached its hypocritical depths when the House recorded its sorrow at the ‘untimely’ death of Princess Margaret in her 72nd year.
In a grown-up modern Parliament no issue should be beyond our surveillance and, if necessary, criticism. It’s our duty to remove the gag and speak freely as citizens and not be silenced as subjects.
This is what I said in the debate:
"There is no clarity on whether we can discuss the issue because of parliamentary practice and convention. It was suggested this week in the House that it would not be appropriate to be critical of a member of the royal family on the basis that ‘they cannot answer back.’ As we are in trail-blazing mode, I would encourage minor royals to engage in public debate if they believe that are being attacked unfairly. Any unfairness is refuted because Prince Andrew has been robustly defended by the Prime Minister and the trade minister He also has the mighty 24 hour support of the generously taxpayer endowed royal spin machine. Even if he chooses not to defend himself, others are defending him.
Over-riding these considerations is the paramount need to promote the rights and duties of parliament. This issue has been hotly debated in the media and on blogs. Why should parliament be uniquely silenced by an archaic convention that should have no part in our modern transparent parliament? Why should the mouths of the elected be bandaged into silence? Any convention of not speaking freely about minor royals should by buried today.
I will be very selective in quoting from the feeding frenzy of accusations against prince Andrew in his role as our Special Representative for International Trade and Investment. I will disregard all those based on innuendo and rumour. What remains are serious, well founded claims that the Prince’s conduct is harming the interests of this country in the following ways.....
That is as far as I reached in the speech. Antique parliamentary rules make the following unsayable in the Commons. These are my notes for the rest of the speech that I never made.
There are a number of accusations against Prince Andrew.
That he is unsuited for this important role and his performance is inadequate or contrary to the interest of the country.
Stephen Day, a former head of the Foreign Office’s Middle East section, took the unusual step of writing to three Whitehall departments, making an impassioned plea for the Government to end the Duke’s “embarrassing” activities.
He said ‘The message being spread around the world is that Britain is so desperate for business, so incapable of competing, that it needs a back –door approach and is content to work closely with dodgy fixers and politicians – ie that British business is incapable of winning contracts through professional, legal means. This is both insulting and damaging to those who have no need of such methods but would go a long way to steer clear of them.
That he has used the role for his own personal aggrandisement and profit.
The prince's connections to Kazakhstan, has been in the spotlight following the sale of his former home to the Kazakh president’s son-in-law, the billionaire Timur Kulibayev.
Kulibayev paid £3million over the asking price for the property. Diplomats have accused the prince of “hawking his house during meetings with Gulf royals.” The Rt Hon. Member for the Rhondda revealed recently “on at least one occasion he expressly asked Embassy staff to make time for him to try selling his splendid home at Sunninghill Park to rich local dignitaries”.
That he cultivated friendship with oppressive tyrannical regimes
Azerbaijan is recognised as one of the world’s most corrupt emerging tyrannies. In the past week they have bludgeoned into submission two democracy demonstrations on the streets of Baku.
The prince visited the Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev, an astonishing eight times in five years’- two of the visits described as "entirely private".
Their friendship may be based on a shared devotion to the hereditary principle. Prince Andrew inherited his job from another royal. Aliyev inherited the presidency from his father in 2003.
Azerbaijan’s leading independent journalists, Ibrahim Bayandurlu, said: 'We just do not understand exactly what it is Andrew does, or why he needs to come here so often. But what is clear is that Ilham Aliyev likes having him around. Even if his power is only really symbolic, Ilham sees him as someone who can open doors.'
The British Press does not report the excesses of this odious regime. All our journalists were expelled from the county in 2009.
That royal status adds hugely the cost of the role with lavish regal class expenses and unpublished but substantial security costs.
Andrew has been defended as a ‘volunteer’. He receives an annual £249,000 allowance from the Queen. His envoy expenses are sumptuous. His ten years in this role have cost the taxpayer £4million, not including the costs of royal protection officers.
In June 2009, the prince chartered a private jet and accompanied by a bodyguard and two officials, he flew to Azerbaijan for three days at an estimated cost to taxpayers of £60,000.
Former Foreign Office Minister Chris Bryant has written, “He would travel in style, with an entourage of at least six, including equerries and secretaries and a valet with an especially long ironing board.’
MPs have a duty to ask the question, whose interests are being served by Prince Andrew’s profligacy? The country he is representing, or his own?
Is his understanding of British industry and business ethics up to the needs of this critical task?
Wikileaks reports that, Prince Andrew criticised Britain's corruption investigators for what he called "idiocy" during a 2008 brunch with British and Canadian business leaders in Bishkek.
Washington's ambassador to Kyrgyzstan at the time allegedly recorded in the secret cable that Andrew went on to denounce reporters "who poke their noses everywhere" and "(presumably) make it harder for British businessmen to do business."
This cavalier approach could undermine Britain’s valuable reputation for fair dealing and exemplary business ethics. Speaking on behalf of a group of prestigious international organisation, Tom Porteous, UK director of Human Rights Watch and Foreign Office adviser, said Prince Andrew was making the UK "look stupid’.
The groups say that the government's stated position on human rights, corporate responsibility and the rule of law is at odds with its apparent position of trading with autocratic or corrupt politicians.
While the storm around Prince Andrew continues, parliament is impotent. He cannot be sacked because he was never openly appointed to the job. He volunteered to take over a role that his mother's cousin, the Duke of Kent, had performed for many years. If there was a job description it would not call for knowledge of British trade, ethics and principles. The only essential qualification is that the applicant must have blue blood.
It is understood that in pursuit of international contracts, contacts with some questionable people are unavoidable. But Andrew’s indiscriminate sucking-up to a catalogue of some world’s crooks and fixers suggests that he is unfit for the vital job. Andrew should ignore the sycophants who defend him. He should heed the Hallelujah Chorus of criticism from serious people and step down.
If not he will bring the reputation of Britain and the Royal Family into further disrepute.
He has gone now thankfully, next to get rid of of is having one of this bunch as the Prince of Wales, waste of money and time, it just shows Wales are ruled and belong to England
Posted by: robert | August 04, 2011 at 11:48 AM
Thank you Simon. Many of the points you make are reasonable. It's parliament I am blame for our failure to speak as citizens not subjects. Reforms will come. A new oath and freedom to criticise minor royals will happen. But it will take a few years because the royals popularity has peaked. It was at a low point at the death of Diana.
It's still impossible to discuss the merits of missing a generation in the succession because Charles is the republicans' friend and will drag down the reputation of a non-interfering monarchy that the Queen has earned by staying silent.
Posted by: Paul Flynn | July 25, 2011 at 05:53 PM
Its important to remember that there is nothing within the British constitution (albeit an uncodified one) that prevents MPs from debating the Royal Family, Monarchy or offering criticism of both. Parliament sets its own rules and protocols, it is unfair to attach blame to the monarchy for the rules enforced or enacted. If parliament wishes to change its rules it can, just as it could change the oath that gets taken, change the line of succession, demand the royal family work a certain number of hours a week, cut its funding or even abolish the monarchy all together... parliament is sovereign and that must always be the case, that is how we are a democracy (those who want a republican written constitution would undermine parliamentary sovereignty, putting more power in the hands of the courts, which by the way are also unelected but have more power over government policies) .
Republicans problem is the overwhelming majority of British people and British MPs rightly support the monarchy so see no issue or need to change things.
I find it interesting that you wish to make a principled stand against monarchy by raising such matters in the Commons, yet you were elected on a Labour party ticket, labour being the only party of the big 3 who actually praised the monarchy in their manifesto in 2010.
Monarchy is a good thing for this country and we should never surrender it.
God save the Queen.
(Although i would like to praise you again for raising the issue of the route of fallen soldiers, its one of the few things ive ever fully agreed with you on).
Posted by: SimonWrights | July 25, 2011 at 02:46 PM
Thanks Sion. You have got it right. It's a nonsense and must be changed.
Posted by: Paul Flynn | July 24, 2011 at 10:51 PM
well said, Sion Jones
Posted by: carole clowes | July 24, 2011 at 03:13 PM
It is ironic that you an say anything yo like about me, or almost anybody on earth, however libellous or untrue in the chamber of the HoC, and we have no redress in law, but you are barred form saying the truth about the royal yobbos.
The British state is no longer fit for purpose. We need a bill of rights, a written constitution, and a republic!
Posted by: Siôn Jones | July 23, 2011 at 06:20 PM
Thanks for the supportive comments. speaker Bercow has said today that the House of Commons has rediscovered 'its collective balls' by summoning witness to a Select Committee. We stop infantalising ourselves and allow free discussion on the frailities of the royal family.
Posted by: Paul Flynn | July 23, 2011 at 05:22 PM
keep up the good work,you should be able to criticise a member of the Royal Family if their behaviour is in question,as we the taxpayers who fund their lifestyle,should also know what is going on,never mind secrets and things being hushed up.they should not be above the law
Posted by: carole clowes | July 23, 2011 at 02:08 PM
I agree with Bob - keep up the good work, Mr. Flynn. I personally wrote to the Speaker some time ago when he had said the references to royalty must only be made very sparingly or some such. I got an answer but not a very satisfactory one. As far as I am concerned, royals have no moral authority as they are not elected. They spend millions of tax payers money and should be accountable. Since they are funded by us, MPs, who are our elected representatives, MUST be allowed to disuss them openly in the House
As for them not being able to answer back, even the most minor royal has his/her own press secretary and the senior royals have many of them, all on enormous salaries paid by us. A constant stream of pro-royal publicity is dripped into our ears night and day by these people. - I have just had to sit through a report about Kate's old wedding dress being put on display on national TV news, as if there were not more important things happening in the world.
Joe Eldren, you know quite well that an elected Head of State will not be required to have a political background. We have told you often enough on Republic facebook page where you have made yourself such a nuisance many people have had to block you.
Posted by: Marion Shead | July 22, 2011 at 11:23 PM
If ever there was a case for the "They cannot answer back" excuse to be binned this is it. They can answer back as far as I'm concerned, and I would relish hearing what they have to say to excuse their profligacy at our expense. Keep up the good work Mr Flynn.
Posted by: Bob | July 22, 2011 at 03:01 PM
Joe Eldren.
There's an easy answer to the convention that they're "not allowed to answer back". Get out of public life. Get rid of the constitutional monarchy. Either be prepared to face up to you critics or move on.
I think it's an outrage that an elected Member of Parliament cannot critcise the behaviour of members of the Royal Family. It's the sort of thing we would be appalled at in North Korea or China as undemocratic or Totalitarian; and yet some people believe it's acceptable in The Mother of Parliaments.
"Absolutely disgraceful and another example of why a politician should never be allowed to take up the position of our head of state."
Have you ever done joined up thinking! If Paul Flynn has said something his constituents believe to be disgraceful they can remove him and get someone they believe to be a better representative. If the Queen, Prince Charles or Prince Philip say anything we consider to be disgraceful, (and, at least the latter two do on a regular basis),we not only have to put up with it; our elected representatives cannot criticise it and we can't do anything to get rid of them. So, I'll misquote you:
"Absolutely disgraceful and another example of why ONLY AN ELECTED politician should EVER be allowed to take up the position of our head of state."
You need to have a little more self respect.
Posted by: Ewen Cameron | July 22, 2011 at 11:58 AM
Bit rich of Joe Eldren to complain about debating technique then fall back on a strawman. Let's build another to keep it company.
"No doubt Joe is wholly in accord with the repressive dictatorship in Azerbajan that has been reported to boil people alive as punishment. Absolutely disgraceful, and another example of why you shouldn't leave royalists alone with your children."
Posted by: D.G. | July 22, 2011 at 10:30 AM
"his splendid home at Sunninghill Park"
Did you see it in the Dispatches (if I remember correctly) programme? It's been left to go to rack and ruin. The Queen must be mortified to see her wedding gift to her second son end up like this.
Posted by: Hendre | July 22, 2011 at 10:01 AM
Not allowed to answer back?`'
This is the reverse of the truth. As an elected MP I was denied the chance to make the above speech. But in the debates several MP were permitted to praise Prince Andrew. Vince Cable and other prominent ministers were called in to defend him. There is also a vast expensive PR machine to defend royalty. It is those of us who are trying to have a balanced debate that are denied a platform in parliament.
Posted by: Paul Flynn | July 22, 2011 at 08:19 AM
Whilst I have every respect for you as an elected representative, you demonstrate in the above piece the typical politician - selective quoting to suit your own argument; taking easy potshots at people who are (as you well know and have mentioned) conventionally not allowed to answer back; misrepresenting Prince Andrew's meetings as personally inspired rather than at the behest of government bodies - I could go on. What of the many leaders of business who have praised Andrew for his opening doors on their behalf?
I found your comment on the House's reaction to Princess Margaret's death beneath you. She was if nothing else at one time the heir to the throne, an important constitutional position. No doubt you are wholly in accord with one supporter of Republic Campaign, who posted on its Facebook page yesterday that "the world would have been a better place without her".
Absolutely disgraceful and another example of why a politician should never be allowed to take up the position of our head of state.
Posted by: Joe Eldren | July 21, 2011 at 11:32 PM
It is outrageous that in the mother of parliaments an elected MP such as yourself is not able to discuss members of the royal family. Andrew, accompanied by feudal servants including one minion with a six-foot ironing board, has been an expensive disaster as our trade envoy.
The sooner this feudal monarchy is swept aside the better. Democracy and monarchy are incompatible.
Please keep up the good work - you must not be gagged!
Posted by: Tom Scott | July 21, 2011 at 09:35 PM