Housing and Urban Development Bill [Ways and Means] (No.2) (Hansard, 25 January 1993)

§ Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley)
We had not intended to speak to this motion until the Government chose to deal with the previous item of business in the way that they did.
On Second Reading, the Government make their case for the ways and means and money resolutions in the general debate. We have debated a money resolution and are about to debate a ways and means resolution because, after having consulted, the Government have decided to table new clauses to the Bill. As a result of the changes, the Government must introduce a further ways and means resolution and a further money resolution to take note of the changes.
The Government tabled the new clauses on Friday last week, at a very late stage. They have allowed no time for the Opposition to table amendments to those new clauses. The usual procedure is that, when new clauses or amendments are tabled, we can table amendments to them, but if we did so in this case they would be starred and might not necessarily be selected. The Government have acted disgracefully throughout, especially with regard to tabling the new clauses.
My hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) and for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) have raised many issues. If, at the start of the debate, the Minister had given the reasons for the money resolution and stated what the new clauses meant, we should have had a better understanding of what the Government were trying to achieve. As they have done throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have acted disgracefully. That is in line—

§ Mr. Derek Fatchett (Leeds, Central)
My hon. Friend is making some interesting and strong criticisms of the Government's handling of the Bill and especially of the fact that they moved the ways and means resolution this evening. For the benefit of those of us who have not followed the proceedings on the Bill as closely as others have—that will include many Conservative Members—will my hon. Friend draw to the attention of the House the significant new clauses which were tabled on Friday? Will he point out the way in which they will alter the Bill and the way in which they relate to the motion? My hon. Friend would do the House and democracy a great service if he drew the new clauses to the attention of hon. Members before they are discussed in Committee.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes)
Order. Before the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) continues, I remind him of the relatively narrow scope of the motion.

§ Mr. Pike
I understand what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not intend to go into the detail of the new clauses. The point is that the House should understand that the new clauses are extremely long and technical. The 845 money formula for the levy, which is dealt with in this motion and in the money resolution, is extremely difficult to understand.
If the Government want to ensure that legislation is debated constructively and positively, they should assist the House at all stages. The Opposition have approached the legislation positively in Committee. The Government have several consultations under way and they will table further amendments to the Bill.
I will not follow the line suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), although there may be some justification for doing so. The Opposition feel strongly that the way in which the Government have gone about things in the money resolution and in the ways and means resolution has been wrong. Any fault lies with the Government.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry)
The comments by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) were somewhat bizarre. It was known for a long time in Committee that these matters would be debated tomorrow. The new clauses were tabled on Thursday, which gave ample time for the Opposition to table amendments on Friday, if they wished to do so. I have no doubt that a number of hon. Members were here on Friday to vote on the Shops (Amendment) Bill. On reflection, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that his point was not a good one.