Mr. Speaker, I have given you notice—I am sorry that it was not as long as I should have liked—that I wish to move three amendments to the motion —amendments which I have submitted to the Table—because I am particularly concerned to find that the rate support grant debate is now to be organised by the Government, after the confidence motion today, and that in the business motion there is a built-in guillotine to limit the debate to four hours and to ensure that the Scottish rate support grant is mixed up with the English debate, which is entirely contrary to the normal practice.

Therefore, I have submitted three manuscript amendments which would allow the two debates to be separated and which at the same time would ensure that there is four hours of debate for the English orders and then two hours for the Scottish order. It does not seem that this is unfair. We are not attempting to override what the Government have proposed, although I had personally hoped that we would find time to have a full day for the debate, as we ought to have for the whole rate support grant consideration.

There are many submissions to hon. Members from the Association of County Councils and from the Association of District Councils. There are already motions and amendments on the Order Paper dealing with this matter, showing how much it concerns individual authorities and individual counties.

I hope very much, Mr. Speaker, that if you will allow the amendments to be called the Opposition will wish to support them—[An. HON. MEMBER: "You are the Opposition."]—only for a little while—and that the opposition to the Government on the Labour Benches will want to support the amendments, because the orders deal with £7·5 billion of expenditure—

Where was the hon. Gentleman last Thursday?

—which is something that they suggest needs to have the most extensive consideration.

Therefore, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the amendments should be put to the House. They would help the House in dealing with the business later and would, I believe, meet many of the wishes of hon. Members.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As no hon. Members are likely to change their minds in the course of the debate which is to take place over the next six hours, would it not be possible to have the vote on that subject now? Also, in view of the Prime Minister's contention that all good people should be in bed by 11 o'clock, that would then give us a full day's debate on the rate support grant.

The House is obliged to the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud).

I am prepared to accept the manuscript amendment, but I hope that, in its own interests, the House will come to an early decision one way or another, if the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) will move the amendment formally.

I beg to move, as an amendment to the Question, after

" Rate Support Grant (Increase) Order 1978 ".

insert

" and ".

I think that that clarifies the situation. If the House accepts the amendment, that will be the end of the matter.

And even if the House does not accept it, that will be the end of the matter.

I shall read the manuscript amendments to the House before I put the Question. They are as follows:

The Question is, the Prime Minister's business motion—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Order. I will put the motion first. The hon. Member's point of order is on the next business, I think.

No, Mr. Speaker, it is not. My point of order is this. Before you put the Question on this motion, since many Government supporters sympathise with the view advanced by the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) about the need for a longer period of time than is being allocated to the various rate support grant orders, may I ask whether there are any circumstances in which we could, without stopping the process of local government being carried on, have this debate or part of it when the House reassembles after Christmas?

That is not really a matter for me.