§ 4.7 pm
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Those hon. Members who listened carefully to what you said when turning down the application by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) noticed that you used a form of words that was rather different from the courteous way in which you normally turn down such requests. You said that you had 705 taken account of what had happened during questions to the Attorney-General. Are you not on rather dangerous ground? Does that not imply some sort of value judgment from the Chair as to whether such questions were answered satisfactorily? Some of us who have been begging that Downing street should refer the case of Lord Glenamara to the Security Commission might think that they were answered most unsatisfactorily. With respect, Mr. Speaker, do you not think that you should be careful in making judgments about requests for early debates that involve questions on which there is a difference of opinion whether they were satisfactorily answered?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman has given me some good advice. In future I shall stick strictly to the words on my brief. I was merely seeking to explain to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that we had had an exchange on this matter today. I was not making a value judgment on it. I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for his suggestion. I shall take it to heart.