---

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point so firmly. I fear that I cannot find time for an extra debate on the Floor of the House, but he can seek other opportunities to raise the matter in an Adjournment debate or in Westminster Hall. I agree that the matter is important, and that it is wrong for people to be misled.

Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet): Barclays bank in Westgate on Sea in my constituency has announced its closure. The bank was the last in that populous village, although there is still a post office. Many of my constituents are concerned by the Government's apparent determination to remove pension payments from post offices. They fear that, as they will have to rely on automatic banking machines, they will be charged out of their pensions when they obtain relatively modest sums. Will the Leader of the House comply with the request made by the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) for time to debate this matter properly?

Mrs. Beckett: It was the Government supported by the hon. Gentleman who introduced the proposals that are causing a good deal of concern. We recently debated the Postal Services Bill, during which debate all those concerns were fully aired. My right hon. and hon. Friends from the Department of Trade and Industry made it plain that reports that people would have no choice in how their pensions would be paid were entirely wrong. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be glad to take this opportunity to reassure his constituents.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas (Harrow, West): Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate the draft climate change programme published today, which I warmly welcome? Such a debate would allow the House to consider how to accelerate the launch of a domestic emissions trading scheme and to identify action necessary to stimulate the renewable energy industry. Achieving our targets for renewables and climate change could create between 10,000 and 45,000 new jobs, predominantly in manufacturing, but also in rural areas.

Mrs. Beckett: I know of my hon. Friend's great interest in that subject and of his pursuit of it. Indeed, he recently initiated an Adjournment debate on the matter.

There is great interest on both sides of the House in that detailed subject and a concern that the agenda be pursued. However, I fear that I cannot find time for a special, urgent debate on it in the near future.

Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset): Can the Leader of the House arrange time to have the Utilities Bill recommitted for debate on the Floor of the House? Since Second Reading, telecommunications and water have been removed from the Bill. The Clerks have been searching

9 Mar 2000 : Column 1198

for a precedent for so many changes to a Bill while it was still in Committee. The measure is turning into the Futility Bill.

Today, we heard on Radio 4--where every Member obtains his or her information--that the Government have met the environmental target of 12.5 per cent. towards which, of course, the Utilities Bill was supposed to be working. The Government have just announced that they are holding urgent discussions with the Electricity Association about where the Bill should be going. May we have it back on the Floor of the House so that every Member of Parliament will be able to express their view as to what has happened?

Mrs. Beckett: No, I fear that there is no question of the Government finding time for that. The way in which the Bill is being handled has been made plain.

As for the hon. Gentleman's inquiries to the Clerks, I can save their time and his; the lifetime of the previous Government offers many precedents of Bills being changed substantially. I direct his attention to the debates in 1985 and 1986 on the Social Security Bill, when, after the Bill had been guillotined, the Tory Government introduced substantial new proposals and measures--all of which took money away from the most vulnerable people in the community.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): The Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), is not a parliamentary shrinking violet. Will the Leader of the House induce her right hon. Friend to come to the Dispatch Box to make a statement on the soaring estimates of the cost of the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh? Is it not an affront that English taxpayers should have to pay for that, especially as they receive no quid pro quo? They even have to pay university fees for their children, unlike their Scottish and European Union counterparts.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is right: my right hon. Friend is not a shrinking violet--he is a robust contender in the House. Indeed, he will be in the Chamber for Question Time on 21 March to defend the Government's record robustly. However, I doubt that the hon. Gentleman or anyone else will be successful in drawing my right hon. Friend on the Scottish Parliament building; not only is that not a matter for him, it is not even one for Scottish Office Ministers--it is under the control of the Scottish parliamentary corporate body.

Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge): In order to facilitate the family-friendly working practices to which, I am sure, we all aspire, can my right hon. Friend tell me whether there is any intention to timetable any of the Government Bills that she has announced today?

Mrs. Beckett: I only wish that I could agree that we all aspire to family-friendly working practices. It is all too plain that some hon. Members aspire to no such thing and, indeed, that they do their best to destroy those practices. The Government accept the decisions made in the earliest days of this Parliament by the Modernisation Committee to encourage the development of programme motions so that we can manage our business more effectively and in a more orderly way. That will ensure that important issues

9 Mar 2000 : Column 1199

can be properly aired. I continue to hold that view, although it is not clear whether it remains that of the Opposition.

Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West): The Leader of the House will be aware that there is growing public concern about the sneaky and disreputable way in which the Government increase taxes for millions of ordinary people. Tesco has written to 170,000 of its employees to tell them that, because of the Government's pensions tax, they will have to increase their contributions from 3.75 per cent. of salary to 4.25 per cent. In view of that, is it not time we held a debate on stealth taxes--on the way the Government are hitting ordinary working people extremely hard and trying to sneak their proposals through so that people will not notice them?

Mrs. Beckett: I know that Conservative Members are not much of an opposition, but four days debate on the Budget are to come and we have just had Treasury questions. Surely even they can manage to raise the financial issues that they want to.

9 Mar 2000 : Column 1200

Points of Order

1.5 pm

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have given you notice of my point of order, because it affects the rights of all hon. Members. Under the Bank of England Act 1998, the Treasury is required to give certain directions to the Bank of England about its inflation target and other Government policies. Under section 12, the Treasury is required to lay a copy of that before Parliament. I am advised that the Government failed to do that, both last year and the year before. They have broken their own law.

My point of order for you, Madam Speaker, is that the Government are also in contempt of the rules and procedures of the House. The laying of a paper is described in "Erskine May" as the way by which important papers are made available to the House generally. I attempted two days ago to obtain this document and was told that it was not available because the Government had failed to lay it before Parliament, as required by the 1998 Act. When I raised this matter with the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in a debate in Westminster Hall yesterday, she appeared to be unconcerned and uninterested, and failed to reply to my point.

Even if you, Madam Speaker, cannot force the Government to obey their own laws, what can you do to protect the rights of hon. Members to receive the documents that the law requires should be made available to the House through the procedures laid out in "Erskine May"?

Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. He probably realises that I received notice of it only a short time before I took the Chair today, so I have not had time to examine it. I shall do so at my earliest opportunity.

Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is there anything in the rules of the House that would allow you directly, or through your influence, to protect the interests of Back Benchers? You will have heard the question that I asked the Cabinet Office yesterday about the time it takes for Ministers to respond to letters. I have a constituent who has now waited 425 days for a letter from the Ministry of Defence about a simple matter. I know that I am not unique among colleagues in waiting months and months for replies.

I raised this issue with the previous Government and tried to improve matters for all colleagues. Is there anything that we can do as Back Benchers to give you, Madam Speaker, the power to require Ministers to answer letters? In extremis, perhaps you would like to invite the Prime Minister to afternoon tea where you could quietly have a word for him about what has happened.

---