Labour MP to defy an 800-year-old parliamentary law by criticising the Duke of York in parliament.

[dingdong89]

I fully support Mr Flynn's actions. There's no place for such an outmoded convention in 21st century British politics.

Labour MP to attack Duke of York in Commons

A Labour MP is planning to defy an 800-year-old parliamentary law by criticising the Duke of York's conduct in parliament.

Paul Flynn, a back-bench Labour MP, says he has been "gagged" by John Bercow, the speaker, who last week barred him from debating the Duke of York's controversial performance as a special trade envoy.

He now intends to side-step the ban using the ?nuclear option? of a Commons motion which would effectively censure the Duke of York.

It would be the first time a member of the Royal Family had been made the subject of such action in modern parliamentary history.

Under the parliamentary convention, which dates back to the 13th century, MPs are banned from conducting debates about members of the royal family.

The rule applies only to comments made in the ordinary course of parliamentary business.

He said: "I want to air issues [such as] his cosying up to dictators and issues relating to ethical standards. As things stand, I'd have more chance of discussing it in the North Korean parliament or Ceausescu's Romania.

"So I am considering the "nuclear option" of putting down a critical motion - but I want to do it with the support of backbenchers."

I can't get too worked up about the Duke of York talking to dictators - the government does business with dodgy regimes so I'm sure the trade envoy or ambassador does too. (Not that I think we should, but given we do...) It's his personal friends and his lavish spending on our expenses that is more problematic.

But it seems ridiculous they are using a convention that dates to the 13th century to ban any criticism of the Royal Family. Quite a lot has happened since, including chopping off a king's head and moving from absolute monarchy to a constitutional one, as well as democracy, a switch in the balance of power between Lords and Commons and the universal franchise... (although I can see the point of not slagging off the Queen herself).

The Duke of York is a soft target because, as a Royal, he can't defend himself if he is censured. If the MP has a problem with foreign trade policy or the methods of the FO I think he should address his concerns to the Foreign Secretary.

More power to his arm, why should any of the royal family parasites be off limits from criticism from our elected MP's.

If the Duke of York was a parasite he wouldn't bother doing any work at all. But as he's working for the Foreign Office and is presumably acting on their instructions then that's where any cricticism should be directed. A debate with the Foreign Office on the strategy of using special envoys would be fine. Criticism of the Foreign Office on the performance or judgement of trade teams would be fine. We deny royals the right stand up and defend themselves against attack and, until that changes, to single out the Duke of York would be unfair.

Is he working for the FCO? Or is it DTI? Or is there still a hybrid body between the two still? (I don't always keep up with the alphabet soup).