§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is within your knowledge that yesterday I raised with your office a possible point of order arising out of a report in the Sunday Times that the debate on Friday, resulting from my luck in the ballot, is to be squeezed out by the device of talking all through the night on the Channel Tunnel procedural motion. Let me say straight away that I acquit the Leader of the House of any such manipulation. I go further and acquit the Government Whips of having been in any way involved. My understanding is that Mr. Bernard Ingham took it on himself, in order to help press colleagues, to say that what was suggested in the Sunday Times should indeed take place.
Should a civil servant, however eminent and powerful, take it upon himself to make judgments on the business of the House of Commons? Is that his competence?
§ Mr. SpeakerI saw the report in the Sunday Times and I read it with interest. It is, of course, press speculation and I have no idea whether Mr. Ingham is responsible, but he is not a Member of this House and I have no jurisdiction over him.
Later—
§ Sir Kenneth Lewis (Stamford and Spalding)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—I am sorry that he has gone—many of us would be quite happy to have his motion debated on Friday because it would be defeated by many votes. If the hon. Gentleman wants the debate, he may have it.
§ Mr. SpeakerAs far as I am concerned, the motion is on the Order Paper and I shall be here on Friday.