On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many Members on both sides of the House have been worried by a challenge to what we think are fundamental rights of parliamentarians. I refer to the predicament of Mr. Flight. I have raised this as a point of order as it has seemed impossible to raise the matter in the House. I have spoken to your office and others have tried to raise the issue, as this is a matter that goes to the heart of parliamentarians' independence, representation and what we do in the House, yet it seems that it cannot be raised under the Orders and rules of the House. Surely there is something wrong when a matter that goes to the core of representation and the independence of parliamentarians cannot be raised in this manner?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Opposition will probably not believe me, but had this happened to one of my Labour colleagues, I would raise the matter at a meeting of the parliamentary Labour party and, if necessary, even though my own party was involved, with you. What concerns my hon. Friend Mr. Sheerman and me, and surely many people, is that as a result of a speech made outside the House—so it is clearly not a matter of privilege—a Member of Parliament has been denied the opportunity of standing for his party in the general election—[Interruption.]

Order.

Although I must concede, I suppose, that, as Speaker of the House of Commons, you cannot do anything about it, it seems to me that this is a threat to Members of Parliament. If it can happen to one Member, it can happen to other Members of Parliament. Although Opposition Members were heckling, I accept that it could even happen on this side. It is a fundamental element of parliamentary democracy that a Member of Parliament should be able to speak his mind without such action being taken, which has deprived Mr. Flight—with whose views, obviously, I totally disagree—of the opportunity of being in the House unless he stands as an independent, which, as a loyal Conservative, he does not wish to do. Can you make any comment that would help parliamentary democracy in this respect?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you have had an opportunity to consider the report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, which examined the whole issue of complaints of privilege. We understand that the precise circumstances in question might not come within the remit of the work done by that Committee, on which I served on the House's behalf, but anything that prevents a Member of Parliament from doing his duty to his constituents—which seems to be the case, setting aside the precise circumstances at the moment—reduces the validity of the position that the Member of Parliament holds. I wonder whether you have been able to take legal advice, or whether that might apply to this situation and the points already made?

Let me try to answer those points of order. May I say that I have the highest regard for Mr. Flight? Ever since he came into the House, I have found him most courteous and a very good parliamentarian. May I say to the hon. Members for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and for Walsall, North (David Winnick) that I well remember the black days when there was mandatory reselection, and at that time I was a member of the parliamentary Labour party. It was very cruel that Members of Parliament had to leave their constituency and cease to be candidates for no good reason other than vindictiveness. I am not saying that that is the case with the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, but that was the case in the 1980s.

What I can say, as Speaker of the House, is that there is no question of privilege, and that this is not a matter that can be raised in the House. It must be raised with the individual parliamentary parties involved—with the 1922 Committee, and with the Conservative or Labour party. It is not a matter for the Chair. I am sorry that I can say no more than that.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I really must ask you for clarification. I know that you have been taking legal advice on this. Why can we not talk about such a fundamental issue in Parliament? It seems to us to bring the House into ridicule when we cannot discuss an attack on the fundamental right of a parliamentarian to speak his mind—in this case, someone with a proven record of being a loyal member of a party, who has done nothing wrong as far as any of us can see, although we may disagree with his views. Yet, because of some obscure, ancient rule, we in this House with 659 Members cannot discuss this matter.

That is not the case. The hon. Gentleman raised the matter on a point of order, and what I told him was that it could not be discussed on a point of order. There are ways of raising the matter, however, and it can be debated in the House. The hon. Gentleman asked me to make a ruling. I am the custodian of the rules of the House, and there is nothing that I can do under the rules of the House; but to say that the matter cannot be discussed in Parliament is inaccurate.

The hon. Gentleman said that I had taken advice on the matter. Obviously I have taken advice, and it is good advice. The best advice that I myself can give now is that we should move on to the next business.