§ Mr. DonnellyMay I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter of which I have given you notice? It is the Motion which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) sought to put down on the Order Paper on 26th January and the Ruling which you gave in this House on 27th January about the Motion being removed from the Order Paper.
I should have raised this matter before, but for the fact that I thought some of my right hon. Friends were considering this matter. I do not wish to give the impression of clashing with the Ruling you gave. I am seeking clarification. In Erskine May, on page 437 of the 15th Edition, it is stated that matters which are pending judicial decision cannot be brought forward for debate in the House. It goes on:
A capital sentence cannot be raised in debate while the sentence is pending.On page 384 of the same edition, dealing with Motions placed upon the Order Paper, it says:A notice wholly out of order, as, for instance, containing a reflection on the vote of the House, may be withheld from publication on the notice paper or,"—and these are the operative words—if the irregularity be not extreme, the notice is printed. and reserved for future consideration.I think some misapprehension has grown up about the Ruling you gave. There is a feeling that you established a new precedent at that time, and I wish to ask for an assurance about two things: first, that you established no new precedent in the Ruling you gave; second, you established no new limitation on the medium of free speech, either by notice 41 on the Order Paper or by the spoken word, which has been handed down to us in this House.
§ Mr. SpeakerI can give the hon. Member both the assurances for which he asks, for the reasons I stated at some length on the occasion to which he has drawn attention. No new precedent has been established and no new limitation on the rights of hon. Members has been enforced.