§ Mr. Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar)On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will recall that "Erskine May", on page 266, addresses a problem of sufficient time to deal with business. We have before us an important debate on post offices and other matters, but we also have the matter of local government finance, which represents 25 per cent. of public expenditure. Even with good will, I cannot imagine that we shall get on to that before 8 o'clock or maybe even later. That does not allow sufficient time to debate this important issue. Have you had an indication from the Leader of the House or from the Deputy Prime Minister that one of them will be coming to the House to make a statement on change of business so that we can have additional time to discuss this matter, which is vital to all our constituents?
§ Madam Deputy Speaker (sylvia Heal)I do understand and sympathise with the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and indeed with other hon. Members in the House who hope to contribute to the debates. The timing of debates and the order of business are in the hands of the Government and I have had no notice of a statement of the type in which the hon. Gentleman is interested.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I raise a point of order concerning the treatment of the House of Commons by the Executive, for the consideration and reflection of Mr. Speaker? On 7 February 1996—
§ Mr. Dalyell:—1996. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), then the shadow Leader of the House, said in relation to the Scott report:
I ask you, Madam Speaker, what you can do to ensure that Members of the House, and in particular the official Opposition, are not deliberately disadvantaged by the procedures being adopted by the Government."—[Official Report, 7 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 331.]My right hon. Friend returned to the subject the following day, saying:Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is in the spirit of Madam Speaker's statement yesterday that Ministers should have eight days to consider the report while the Opposition have only six hours?"—[Official Report, 8 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 472.]Indeed, the present Leader of the House, a week later on 15 February, at column 1146, complained bitterly that the then Government had had eight days and Members of Parliament had had eight minutes.It is in the recollection of Members that on 24 September, a dossier of 55 pages on a rather complex subject was published at 8 o'clock. It was subsequently described, rightly or wrongly, by President Putin as little more than propaganda. My question is this: if reports are published for the consideration of the House, should not they be published—as they perfectly easily could have been—two, three or four days before, so that they can be considered not only by Members, but on the anvil of informed opinion? Quite bluntly, I think that it was a 223 calculated, cynical attempt to give a rather different gloss on a report than that which was actually contained in the report. These things should be subject to argument, because otherwise it will be seen as a deceiving the House.
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerI thank the hon. Member for giving notice to Mr. Speaker of his point of order. The House can reasonably expect notice of important Government documents before they are the subject of debate, and Mr. Speaker attaches importance to this principle. The exact timing of the issue or publication of Government documents, however, remains a matter for Ministers, and the Speaker has no power to direct when papers will be provided.
§ Mr. Gary Streeter (South-West Devon)On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice. Hundreds of schoolteachers in Devon this evening are looking to tonight's debate on local government finance to give them hope in tackling the underfunding of children in Devon and to help them campaign for fair funding for Devon schoolchildren. Now that the Government have squeezed that debate into two hours, how can these issues properly be dealt with by the House? What message can I take back to the people of Devon about the way that this Government have once again sought to sideline the importance of the House?
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerI have already answered that point of order, I think, which was raised by a Member on the Front Bench.
§ Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton)Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I heard your decision and your ruling about the timetabling of business being in the hands of the Government, but I hope that you will bear it in mind, given the representations being made to you about the limited time to debate three very important issues tonight, that we are shortly to consider changing the 224 Standing Orders of the House in order that Members can, apparently, swan off to cinema clubs in the evenings. I hope that you will convey to—[Interruption.]
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerOrder. I repeat what I said earlier. We are now discussing the merits. I have already given a ruling on the point of order.
§ Mr. David Curry: (Skipton and Ripon)On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerIs this on the same topic?
§ Mr. CurryYes, and it is absolutely relevant, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order for you to inform the House of how many hon. and right hon. colleagues are seeking to catch your eye in the debate on local government finance, so that the Government may form a view as to how much additional time would be necessary to accommodate those very important views?
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerMay I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, who is very well experienced in the running of the House, that he approach that through the usual channels?
§ Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire)On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I take it from the fact that Mr. Speaker has set a 10-minute limit on all speeches that there is considerable demand to take part in the local government debate. Can you confirm that, as the Order Paper stands at the moment, it is likely that there will be debate on a ten-minute rule Bill and then the hour and a half for the Post Office, and if we then come on to the Public Trustee (Liability and Fees) Bill and there is concern about that Bill, it could well be that we have no time to debate local government at all, and the only people we shall listen to will be Ministers? Surely that cannot be part of the way in which the Speaker would condone a debate's taking place in the House on such an important issue, which represents 25 per cent. of public expenditure?
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerI refer the hon. Gentleman to the point that I made earlier, but say too that the business of the House today is due to finish at 10 pm. It is to some extent in the hands of Members how the remaining time that we have is spent.