Further to that point of order. Could you advise us, Mr. Speaker, not only on the question of this Bill—the Corporation Bills of Lancaster and Halifax have received similar treatment—what right we have to raise matters when an entirely new procedure seems to be brought into Private Bills stopping the cross-examination of witnesses and behaving in a manner which some of us feel is not in the best interests of the House?
Further to that point of order. I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that there is a very important principle involved here which, in view of the Summer Recess coming along, raises certain problems of procedure in the House. It is not a question of prejudging these Bills but of the procedural question which is involved. Could you give us your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to how we can examine the procedural issue as far as the House is concerned?
My first suggestion was—it is the only one which occurs to me—to put down a Motion and have the matter properly discussed in debate. I can see no other way.
Further to that point of order. May we take it, Mr. Speaker, that if such a Motion is put down time will be made available to debate it? What troubles us is that the Chairman of Ways and Means said that he could not indicate now when time could be given to debate my hon. Friend's Motion. What the House would be interested to know is whether some time before the end of the Session time would be made available for such a debate.