HMSO

§ The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman)

Anyone with a working knowledge of the House or of any Department of Government, will know that Her Majesty's Stationery Office has a long and illustrious history. It is one of the oldest Government Departments remaining in existence.

In 1786, a Treasury official called John Mayor suggested that the Government might make substantial savings if they bought all their paper and stationery through a central source. As a result, Her Majesty's Stationery Office was established as a small office fulfilling precisely that role. In all its activities since then, it has continued to honour that founding purpose by providing its customers with a cost-effective and high-quality service.

From such humble origins, HMSO gradually expanded into many other sectors, including printing and print buying, all aspects of publishing and supplying stationery, office equipment and furniture. In many of its activities, it came to represent a single, authoritative and trustworthy supplier to government and, in return, HMSO has been assigned many functions vital to effective government in this country.

For more than 100 years, HMSO has acted as printer to Parliament and, as hon. Members are of course aware, has also provided a service of the highest quality and efficiency, which is vital for the effective conduct of business in the House and the other place.

Much of HMSO's official printed output has, since 1882—

§ Mr. Patrick Thompson (Norwich, North)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way so early in his remarks, but while he is doing a historical survey of HMSO, and bearing in mind HMSO and Hansard's very strong connections with Norwich, will my right hon. Friend make crystal clear his commitment to future jobs in Norwich? Will he also express his determination that there will remain a very strong presence for HMSO in Norwich in future, as there has been in the past?

§ Mr. Freeman

I am well aware of my hon. Friend's attention to his constituency duties, and I am able to give the following assurances about employment prospects: first, that Ministers will continue to consult the trade union representatives of the work force; secondly, that I can confirm that there are no plans for compulsory redundancies at HMSO in Norwich or anywhere else in the period running up to the proposed sale of the business; and, thirdly, that the provisions of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 will apply. Incidentally, the provisions of TUPE are not time-limited. As far as a buyer is concerned—

§ Mr. Martin O'Neill (Clackmannan)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way at this early stage, but surely he is aware that, after 90 days, the requirements of TUPE are over and that there is no commitment on the part of an incoming employer to honour the undertakings laid down by his predecessor for any longer than that period. 1275 The Minister should check with his officials, because that is the position, and there is chapter and verse in industrial relations law at present to show that that is the case.

§ Mr. Freeman

The provisions of TUPE apply, obviously, at the point of transfer of an undertaking from one owner to the other, and the owner is bound by those provisions. If an owner seeks to change and negotiate changes in the terms and conditions that apply to the work force of the business, the usual procedures for negotiations apply.

Perhaps the House will permit me to complete my answer to the first intervention, I inadvertently gave way a second time during my answer to the first intervention.

Finally, as I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) that, in searching for an acceptable purchaser of the business, we shall seek to select a company that wishes to, and has clear and acceptable plans to, expand the business of HMSO.

No Minister can give any assurances about the total level of employment or the nature of the operations of any public or private sector organisation in future, but I hope that my hon. Friend is satisfied with those four very clear assurances of our policy.

§ Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Further to the question to which the Minister has just responded, is it not the case that, the day after the change of ownership, the new employer can give contractual notice in respect of any term and condition of employment? Given that that is so, is the Minister therefore saying that he is guaranteeing, in the sale arrangements, a commitment that any future purchaser would have to give something stronger than the basic contractual requirements? Is he saying that a term of the sale will be something that guarantees that changes will not take place in contracts of employment?

§ Mr. Freeman

I would not use the word "guarantee". I said that, in seeking a purchaser for the business, we shall look for a company that wishes to expand the business, and therefore the job prospects. I did not say that we would either seek or expect guarantees from any company. If HMSO were to remain in the public sector, I could not guarantee what jobs would be retained. I have already forecast that if HMSO remains in the public sector, its business and its employment base will contract.

§ Mr. John Garrett (Norwich, South)

Why?

§ Mr. Freeman

For the very simple reason that the business of government is reducing. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that, in the past 10 years, the work force of HMSO has contracted very substantially; it has halved in the past decade. That contraction is primarily a function of the reduced volume of turnover available to HMSO within the public sector.

Since 1882, much of HMSO's official printed output has had the unique legal privilege of being conclusive evidence of the matter stated and it is frequently relied on in the courts. By the end of the decade, HMSO had assumed formal responsibility for overseeing legislative printing and the then controller of HMSO and his successors were appointed as Queen's or King's printer in pursuit of that function. From that time, the controller 1276 has also administered Crown copyright on behalf of the sovereign and, by agreement with the House and the other place, he also administers parliamentary copyright. In discharging those functions, HMSO has demonstrated and enhanced its reputation for diligence and reliability, which is now well known across the public sector and beyond.

The parliamentary and statutory publishing business accounts for about 10 per cent. of HMSO's total turnover. HMSO has always relied substantially on its original activities of supplying its customers with the essential requirements of administration—for example, printing services, office equipment and stationery. HMSO naturally brings to that work the same reputation for high quality and service. Since its founding days, it has been guided by the need to minimise the overall cost to the Government, and therefore to the taxpayer, while maintaining the standards that its customers have come to expect. That objective has guided the Government's policy of reforming HMSO in the past 15 years and it must clearly be paramount in any decisions taken about its future.

For the greater part of its history, HMSO's services were funded by means of an annual vote from Parliament. HMSO's supplies were, in accountancy terms, an allied service. Therefore, its customers did not have to draw on any of their voted funds to pay for the goods and services that they received. They effectively received them free. Although they benefited from HMSO's purchasing expertise and the savings that are inevitably made when buying in bulk, there was no incentive for them to look for a better deal elsewhere. Similarly, there was no pressure on HMSO to ensure that it offered the best deal.

As alternative suppliers became increasingly available for most HMSO services, it was clear that more could be done to ensure that the cost to the taxpayer was minimised. For those reasons, in 1980 HMSO became one of the first of the Government's trading funds. That meant that, for the first time, it had to cover all its costs through customer charges rather than through an annual vote of cash. In return, it gained considerable management freedom over operational and finance matters.

§ Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire)

Does my right hon. Friend concede that, from that point, the price of Hansard has increased to such an extent that people can no longer afford to buy it? That was a direct consequence of the Government's decision.

§ Mr. Freeman

That was correct at the time. However, I am delighted to inform the House that, as a result of negotiating a new service agreement and of HMSO's responsiveness, the price of Hansard is now falling. I hope that the price not only of Hansard but of other documents supplied to the House and to the other place will continue to fall. That is a function of greater efficiency at the stationery office—I congratulate the management and the staff—and of a tougher and more businesslike attitude on the part of the House and the other place regarding the supply of documents.

§ Sir Patrick Cormack

My right hon. Friend knows that I am very displeased with the general plans to privatise HMSO. Do not his comments illustrate the good sense of keeping the publication of parliamentary papers properly within the control of Parliament? Is it not impossible to guarantee that if the work goes to a wholly free-standing commercial operation?

§ Mr. Freeman

I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's statement. Parliament must control the supply of those immensely important services; I do not dissent from that view. I believe that the House will have greater powers than it has at present through the negotiation and execution of a contract between it and the supplier of the services. The powers would be formalised. I do not believe that any successful purchaser of all the printing, publishing and other allied business of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, as it is now called, would seek to renege from, diminish or belittle the importance of the services that it provides to the House. The contract will be extremely important and I believe that Parliament will be able to control it better than at present.

I am aware of my hon. Friend's concerns in that regard. Although I believe that it would be commercially unattractive to separate the parliamentary from the Crown business, as my hon. Friend has pressed me on that point I shall certainly reflect further on the matter. It may be that, on reflection, I shall decide that some arrangements could be made, but I offer no immediate prospect of a satisfactory solution.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

The Minister said that Parliament could control the business better. What methods does he have in mind to ensure that?

§ Mr. Freeman

I explained to the House that, for the first time in the history of the relationship between Parliament and Her Majesty's Stationery Office, there is now a formal service agreement. That was signed last week and it will come into effect on 1 January. There is a similar agreement with the other place. It is envisaged that the authorities of the House will enter into a formal contract on behalf of the House with the supplier of those services, in the same manner as many other services to the House—which perhaps are not as significant, but which are subject to normal commercial contracts. I believe that the existence of a public document that specifies the nature and the quality of services, together with the price of those services, represents a better mechanism through which the House can control the supply of the services.

§ Mr. O'Neill

In the event that HMSO is unable or unwilling to comply with the undertakings into which it enters, what powers will the House have to excise any damages or compensation from the printer?

§ Mr. Freeman

It depends on the provisions of the contract. The House may wish to have the right to veto any change in ownership or to inscribe damages into the contract or it may wish to remove the business of printing Hansard from other printing and publishing business. That is the nature of a commercial contract.

§ Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne)

Is it correct that the contract could specify that any future change in the operations of the buyer should be subject to the requirements of Parliament? Although parliamentary business may constitute a relatively small proportion of the new operator's turnover, from a commercial point of view it would be under a great deal of pressure to maintain a good relationship with the House and the other place because any failure to fulfil its requirements could jeopardise the rest of its business.

§ Mr. Freeman

It must be right that the dozens of private sector companies that supply services to the House 1278 and the other place seek to retain their good name and maintain their business with the Palace of Westminster and both Houses of Parliament. I am sure that the same will apply a fortiori to the supply of printed documents.

§ Mr. Garrett

If HMSO breaks its contract, all we can do is sue it. Surely the Government should put those requirements into the tender document in the first place.

§ Mr. Freeman

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. It is a matter for the House and not for the Government. [Interruption.] One may laugh, but, although I shall be responsible for the contracts placed by the Crown with the printer and publisher supplying documents, the precise contractual arrangements are a matter for the House. Speaking on behalf of the Crown, I would envisage that any contract for the supply of such important documents as White Papers, Green Papers and other statements of Government policy would include extremely tough contractual provisions.

§ Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)

Let me make it clear on behalf of the House of Commons Commission, first, that the service agreement that the Minister has described is entirely independent of the discussion about privatisation and comes into force on 1 January as a result of work already done. Secondly, on behalf of the House, the Commission would expect to reserve the right to make whatever arrangements seemed appropriate if there were any default on the contract by a private organisation that took over the duties of HMSO.

§ Mr. Freeman

I quite accept what the right hon. Gentleman said and I agree with him.

Shortly after 1980, customers—Government Departments—were freed for the first time from the requirement to deal with HMSO and were permitted to use any supplier that offered them the best deal. The results were dramatic. The commercial imperatives placed on HMSO meant that costs fell sharply after it attained trading fund status. That could only be good news for customers. Not only were they now free to shop around but they benefited from the savings passed on by HMSO as a result of its new-found commercial freedom.

That commercialisation also exposed HMSO to true competition for the first time and the private sector was quick to seize the opportunity. Central Government were and remain an attractive market for many of the services provided by HMSO, which soon had to compete with suppliers that were well used to the rigours of the marketplace and, more important, were not bound by the same public sector regulations as HMSO. In retrospect, the management and staff of HMSO rose to the challenge remarkably well and, despite that intense competition, HMSO remains the clear market leader in the supply of printing and stationery to central Government.

Ultimately, however, that competition will work against HMSO if it remains in the public sector. For instance, its governmental status means that it is still bound by restrictions on the prudent use of taxpayers' money, which ultimately accounts for nearly all its income. That rules out decisions that would carry only normal commercial risk in the private sector. It is unable to raise investment capital in ways open to private sector business or to diversify into new markets. Most important, it cannot trade with private sector customers when its own central Government market is in decline. 1279 In such an environment, HMSO would clearly struggle to maintain its position. Although it has generally continued to meet the financial targets that it has been set, its turnover has declined by some 10 per cent. since 1990. A continued cost-cutting programme has led to the reduction of staff numbers by some 600 over the same period. To allow matters to continue in the same vein would be a gross disservice to the management and staff at HMSO, whose efforts have built on the organisation's formidable reputation and who in recent years have found their futures in jeopardy through being unable to compete fairly with other suppliers.

At the same time, to return to the old way of a protected market into which customers were tied would deny those customers and the taxpayers the benefits that they have gained since 1980. It would also imply a wholly unjustifiable lack of confidence in the ability of the management and staff of HMSO to run a prosperous, competitive business.

As I announced in the House last week, we therefore plan to privatise HMSO by means of competitive tender offer. That will allow the business to compete on equal terms with the private sector for the first time. It will be able to trade into wider markets and to diversify and expand as business opportunities present themselves. It will be able to raise funds for investment through all the channels open to private business, rather than having to apply to the Treasury. All those improvements will allow its customers to benefit from further efficiency savings and, as nearly all of them are at present funded from taxation, that will also benefit the taxpayer. At the same time, working in a more secure and prosperous environment will naturally present its staff with a more secure future.

I am convinced that, without privatisation, the business will continue to decline and its staff will face continuing job losses.

§ Mr. Mark Robinson (Somerton and Frome)

Is it not fair to say that HMSO is a centre of excellence that will attract a prospective purchaser and that, far from wanting to destroy the business, any prospective purchaser will want to keep the management team together and build on that business?

§ Mr. Freeman

I agree with my hon. Friend. I take a constructive attitude to the future of any business which has built its success, albeit in a declining public market, on not only its integrity but its hard work and its skill in obtaining business from Government and Parliament and discharging its function satisfactorily.

§ Mr. Patrick Thompson

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way again, but, as he is referring to the hard work and the skill of the staff of HMSO, many of whom live in Norwich and the surrounding area, will he respond to the particular point I made earlier about the importance of maintaining a strong base for HMSO in Norwich? That is traditionally so and I believe that it should continue. Can my right hon. Friend make a commitment to that?

§ Mr. Freeman

As I said to my hon. Friend earlier, I cannot make any forecast about how a business is organised into the future. However, having visited Norwich 1280 twice—I intend to do so again to discuss the future with management and representatives of the staff—it is clearly the sensible headquarters of the business and I know of no reason why there should be any change in that regard. I cannot forecast how the nature of the business of HMSO will change the individual loadings of specific factories or depots in future. Norwich is clearly the centre, and I see no good reason why that should change.

§ Sir Patrick Cormack

I am particularly grateful for the assurance that my right hon. Friend gave me earlier, but surely any internationally based company could buy HMSO and produce from wherever it wished to produce and that is the blunt fact. I would not begin to impugn my right hon. Friend's good intentions or integrity, for which I have the highest possible regard, but he cannot guarantee it.

§ Mr. Freeman

Like many hon. Members, I spent the majority of my life in business in the private sector, subject to the rigours of the private sector. One locates businesses where that makes the most economic and business sense. I pay tribute to the management of HMSO for doing that and reorganising the business. Of course I cannot give my hon. Friend any assurance about where and how the business will be organised in future. I cannot do that with HMSO in the public sector, let alone the private sector. For the business to expand, it must be given the opportunity to compete for private sector business which I believe is available, and that must load its existing factories, if they are efficiently organised and located, which is clearly the case. That will enhance job opportunities.

§ Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford, South)

I recognise that the Minister is accepting interventions; but, to pick up the point made by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), the right hon. Gentleman cannot give guarantees, yet he has tried to do so in letters to Madam Speaker and to the work force of HMSO. The Minister has also accredited and applauded the workers and management of HMSO. Does he expect a management buy-out?

§ Mr. Freeman

No. There is no sign of any interest on the part of the management and staff, I suspect partly because of the size of the operation. It is a significant industrial operation and one would not normally expect a management buy-out. To return to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, I cannot give guarantees about the size of the work force of HMSO in the public sector and nor can the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), who leads for the Opposition and to whom I give way.

§ Mr. Derek Foster (Bishop Auckland)

May I press the right hon. Gentleman on his statement that the public sector market is in decline? He says that the central Government market is in decline, and that may well be the case for the time being; but the public sector market is far wider than the central Government market, and the right hon. Gentleman has not yet been able to privatise the entire public sector.

Does the right hon. Gentleman take account of the fact that we now talk in terms of the public sector's being the whole European market? As I understand it, HMSO has done little in the way of marketing throughout Europe. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear that in mind when he makes statements in the future?

§ Mr. Freeman

The right hon. Gentleman is right. The public market, as broadly defined, is enormous. However, private sector companies could bid, for example, to print the journals and other documents of the European Parliament and the European Commission; bidding is not restricted to HMSO. I should like HMSO in the private sector to compete vigorously for that business. As a matter of policy, I do not want a public sector body, funded and ultimately guaranteed by the taxpayer, to compete for business outwith the United Kingdom public sector when other companies can compete with that business. I am confident that, given its reputation and expertise, HMSO will be able to expand its business into the European public sector when it is privatised.

§ Mr. Peter Mandelson (Hartlepool)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He has been very patient.

May I pursue the point that the right hon. Gentleman made to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack)? He said that he could give no assurances about the location of production in the future. I wonder how that squares with his response to questions from hon. Members on 13 December, when he said:

We, as the customers—that is to say, the Crown and Parliament—can require the business to have a certain nature and structure … Parliament will be able to control the nature of the business that supplies the products."—[Official Report, 13 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 993.] Is the right hon. Gentleman not flatly contradicting what he said only last week?

§ Mr. Freeman

I was referring to HMSO's entire business. Parliamentary business represents 10 per cent. of the total. When I was questioned about the parliamentary press, I said that the contract written by Parliament could stipulate that the work must be done at the parliamentary press works—which is, in fact, a misnomer: the press prints more than just documents for the two Houses of Parliament, but that is not inconsistent with—

§ Mr. Mandelson

That refers to the location.

§ Mr. Freeman

Yes, but I was making the point specifically in regard to the parliamentary business and the parliamentary press. If the hon. Gentleman is asking, by implication, whether the Crown—that is, various Departments—would wish to stipulate when writing contracts that certain documents must be printed in certain cities, let me tell him that I do not consider that appropriate. We would look for a contract with the stationery office that offered good value for money in comparison with the alternatives; how that was organised would be a matter for the stationery office. There is one exception, however. If the hon. Gentleman does me justice and reads all the evidence that I gave to the Select Committee on Finance and Services, he will realise that I was dealing with that specific problem. Indeed, I provided even more assurances in response to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack).

Accordingly, I propose to invite offers in the new year for the whole business, apart from a small residual body to deal with necessary public responsibilities such as Crown copyright. I plan to make a written statement on Government policy for Crown copyright by early February. The sale process will allow full screening and 1282 evaluation of all bids and consultation with customers, principally Parliament. It should also allow for legally binding contracts to be drawn up between customers and the privatised business.

However, as I confirmed in my statement last week, I am not setting deadlines. There is a prerequisite that Parliament be satisfied—although I am also anxious for the uncertainty to last no longer than is absolutely necessary. It would make little commercial sense for us to withhold any of HMSO's operational businesses from the sale. Many of them are mutually dependent, and all benefit from the independence and integrity of HMSO, which I am keen to preserve after the sale. In particular, however, I note the suggestion of some hon. Members that the parliamentary press should not be sold, and could perhaps be taken over by the House. I have already responded to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire.

Hon. Members have also previously suggested that HMSO should be freed from all its current public sector operating constraints yet be retained in the public sector. The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland advanced that argument, and I am sure that he will do so again this evening. The commercial freedoms that HMSO would need to compete with the private sector in new markets are incompatible with its continuing in the public sector. The first commercial freedom is the right to borrow without the burdens of public sector constraints. No Government could countenance the prospect of a public sector body's having normal commercial freedoms to borrow.

The second commercial freedom is the right to win customers in any market, public or private. If HMSO as a public sector body were allowed such freedom, its competitors in the private sector would be bound to suspect unfair competition, especially if HMSO were able to borrow money cheaply because its activities were thought to be underwritten by the taxpayer. It is far better all around, for both HMSO and its competitors, for business to be transferred to the private sector, where it can compete on equal terms and can have freer access to the finance that will enable it to expand.

The only sensible course is clearly privatisation of the bulk of HMSO as it is currently constituted. During such a process, customers will naturally want the maximum assurance that after the sale they will continue to receive the high-quality and cost-effective service to which they have been accustomed. At the same time, potential purchasers will wish to make their own estimate of HMSO's future viability, and to be sure that it will enjoy a reasonably secure level of business after transfer to the private sector. We propose to accommodate both those needs through legally binding contracts between major customers and the privatised business, wherever it is sensible to do so, and for that to come into force at the point of sale.

Parliament is, of course, HMSO's key customer. The contracts will specify all the customer's requirements, standards of service and, if necessary, the means by which the service shall be delivered, as well as price. Customers' requirements will therefore be clearly specified and fully enforceable, ultimately by recourse to law. Agreeing the contracts with HMSO's customers is an onerous task, but I have every confidence that it can be achieved with the co-operation of those customers, whose interests the contracts will protect.

§ Sir Patrick Cormack

In answer to an earlier intervention, my right hon. Friend gave an assurance that he would reconsider the parliamentary aspect. Will he report to the House on that specific point before pursuing his commercial inquiries?

§ Mr. Freeman

I have already given an assurance. I must now end my speech, as time is short and others wish to speak, but I shall foreshadow a commitment that I intend to give in a moment. I shall publish the short list of potential buyers; Parliament will have its views on their acceptability.

The needs of Parliament are particularly important, and it is vital for them to be fully protected in the new contracts required by both Houses. I note that new supply and service agreements will shortly come into force between the House of Commons and the other place and HMSO; they will provide a sound basis for the contracts. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is right: they are wholly independent of and separate from the privatisation proposals, and have an entirely different genesis. I am confident that we can reach a position that fully protects Parliament's needs in the privatisation.

§ Mr. Mark Robinson

Does that mean that, when the bids come in, they will first be assessed to establish whether they pass certain quality thresholds, rather like television station franchises? Once those that do not pass those thresholds are eliminated, will those that qualify be considered?

§ Mr. Freeman

Not only would the Government wish to draw up a short list acceptable to Departments; Parliament will insist that, if it is to conclude a contract with the privately owned stationery office, the new owner of the business must be entirely acceptable.

§ Mr. Dalyell

The Minister has talked of binding legal contracts. Does he realise that the whole set-up in Scotland will have to be rather different? Can he make any statement about the discussions that have been held with the Scottish Office about the future of the 200 people working at South Gyle, 95 per cent. of whom voted against privatisation in a poll? So much for the consultation with the work force of which the Minister speaks.

§ Mr. Freeman

With respect, perhaps the work force were not entirely aware of the arguments and advantages of what is proposed, not only for the unit in Scotland but for others, in Wales and Northern Ireland. I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that the future of those units, and any others, will be made clear before any contract is negotiated and signed. They have been treated as an integral part of the printing and publishing operations of HMSO. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have noted my earlier assurances about what is to be offered, that is, the whole.

In her letter of 28 November to the Leader of the House, Madam Speaker set out the safeguards that the House of Commons Commission considers necessary to enable the House to continue its agreement with HMSO after privatisation. It was published in the Official Report of 11 December. My reply on behalf of the Government was placed in the Library of the House on 14 December, and explains how those safeguards can be met, primarily through a legally enforceable contract. As well as meeting 1284 Parliament's requirements in that way, potential purchasers will have to honour recently negotiated improvements, such as reductions in the price of publications, and, I hope, negotiate further reductions.

I fully recognise that a change in ownership is a source of concern for staff. However, I am convinced that it is the best means of safeguarding their future by permitting an expansion of the business. I have already given an assurance that I shall consult the trade union representatives of the staff during the sale process. The staff and the trade unions will, of course, be kept as fully informed as possible by the management and privatisation team during the sale process. I can also give the House an assurance that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 will apply to the sale of HMSO, and staff will transfer with their existing terms and conditions. That protection is important and applies, of course, in any transaction whether in the public or private sector. I expect the newly privatised business to be able to offer staff a more attractive future as the business prospers and grows.

In selecting a successful bidder from the short list, one of the factors that we will consider is the bidder's plans for the future growth of the business. Pension rights are protected by social security legislation. The new owner will be required to provide broadly comparable pension arrangements. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the pension scheme is non-contributory. The Government Actuary will be asked to provide an independent analysis of comparability and to approve the new arrangements as offering broadly comparable benefits. In addition, the pension fund will be under the control of the board of trustees, in accordance with trust law.

We will exclude from the sale a small residual body charged with carrying out HMSO's statutory functions. That body will also be responsible for the administration of Crown copyright and could continue to administer parliamentary copyright if Parliament so wished. Retaining responsibility for copyright in the public sector will allow us to sustain and improve the accessible and affordable publication of government information.

I confirm that the Government will seek a buyer who will maintain the integrity of the present HMSO. In no circumstances will we offer the printing and publishing businesses separately. The buyer must, of course, be acceptable to Parliament. To that end, I intend to publish the short list of bidders in due course and to invite Parliament to be involved in the selection of the successful candidate to ensure that a satisfactory outcome is achieved for work for Parliament. I undertake to consult the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the Leader of the Opposition, and business managers on how that should be accomplished. My dealings have so far been with Madam Speaker, acting on behalf of the House of Commons Commission, but further reflection may indicate another approach. That is the arrangement that has existed so far.

In addition to this debate, I have already made a statement to the House and given evidence to the Finance and Services Committee. I remain ready to outline the Government's plans further, in Select Committee or elsewhere.

I commend these plans to the House, in the best interests of HMSO, its customers, its staff, the taxpayer and Parliament.

§ Mr. Derek Foster (Bishop Auckland)

I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for arranging to have placed in the Library his reply to Madam Speaker's letter to the Leader of the House dated 28 November. I also thank the Chairman of the House of Commons Finance and Services Committee, who, at my request, published the minutes of evidence of his Committee's meeting of 21 November 1995, at which the Chancellor gave evidence about the privatisation of HMSO.

Both documents have only just been made available. I do not blame the Chancellor or the Chairman; they have done their best. The real culprits are the business managers who brought forward the debate from Wednesday to today. They have played into our hands. Because the debate is taking place when the House has not had the opportunity to absorb important new information, that strengthens the argument for another debate in the new year, when even more details will be available. Will the Chancellor and the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee join me in urging the Leader of the House—I am glad to see him in his place; he has a deep interest in this issue as a member of the Commission—to respond positively to these requests?

The other day, I described the Chancellor of the Duchy as a decent man fallen among thieves. Perhaps I was unkind to thieves. I really do feel sorry for him, as he only just escaped responsibility for carrying through the privatisation of the railways—the poll tax on wheels, in the words of the late Robert Adlee when he was Chairman of the Transport Select Committee. It was out of the frying pan and into the fire. There he is in the Cabinet Office, privatising everything that moves or is stationery. [Interruption.] That was Matthew Parris; we should give credit where it is due. It is a grand clearance sale, or, more to the point, a closing down sale. Everything must go—unbelievable bargains. A thousand little-used Sir Humphreys are going cheap. Those are the actions of a defeated Government. They know that the voters cannot wait to take vengeance. They are scorching the earth in their humiliating defeat.

§ Sir Patrick Cormack

Did you write that, Derek?

§ Mr. Foster

Perhaps Matthew Parris wrote that, too.

Why are the Government doing that? Perhaps they need the money to start another party in the wife's name. Looking at today's public sector borrowing requirement figures, has the Chancellor of the Exchequer so screwed up the nation's finances that he has to sell off every candle end before the bailiff arrives?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in his statement, denies that the money is important. If it is not, perhaps this is an elaborate job creation scheme: not jobs for those who work in the agencies to be sold off, as they are likely to lose theirs, but rather jobs for the boys on the boards of privatised companies, for former Ministers, defeated Members of Parliament and defeated Tory candidates. The Chancellor looks a little hurt, as though Nolan had never been necessary.

§ Mr. Waterson

The hon. Gentleman drew an analogy with rail privatisation. Is he able to give any commitment to the House that the Labour party, if it were in power, would renationalise HMSO, when unfortunately it is not able to give such a commitment about rail privatisation?

§ Mr. Foster

The hon. Gentleman is a little premature. The Government have not yet privatised HMSO. They could just be frustrated by an early election. Who can tell?

What other reason can the Government have? Perhaps they have nothing else to do. They have no legislative programme, except a few Bills "to smoke out the Opposition", in the words of the chairman of the Tory party.

§ Mr. Mark Robinson

Is not the hon. Gentleman playing a rather familiar record, because every time we have debated privatisation we have heard doom and gloom from the Labour party, when the result has been success?

§ Mr. Foster

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he has had gloom and doom so far, he should just stick around.

The Government have no Bills to speak of, except to smoke out the Opposition, and Parliament is on a one-day week, so we read. Ministers sit in their offices, dreaming up crackpot schemes to prove that the Government are still fizzing with ideas. The truth is that the Government are drifting aimlessly to the general election, with so little sense of direction that they grasp at anything that will appease their lunatic fringe. Perhaps the lunatics are not yet in charge of the asylum but they have certainly written the business plan. Privatisation is an idea whose time has passed. It has been fatally wounded by the greed of the fat cats.

§ Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Foster

If the hon. Gentleman hangs on, I shall give way to him in a minute.

No doubt, hon. Members will have seen the headline on the front page of yesterday's issue of the Observer. It reads:

Fat cats get £16m boost to pensions". The whole idea has been blown out of the water in recent months. The fat cats get the cream while the staff get their cards. The Chancellor of the Duchy is fanning the dying embers, and the grand scheme has been reduced to this—selling off HMSO.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was right to ask what the Government would sell off next. Will it be the Mace or the Dispatch Box? Such sales are worse than selling off the family silver—now they are selling off the empty boxes in which the silver was kept.

§ Mr. Hughes

I was happy to wait for the right hon. Gentleman to give way, and I wait in anticipation to find out whether he intends to say anything about HMSO. He said—I am sure I quote him correctly—that privatisation was an idea whose time had gone. At what point did he form that judgment? Presumably he supported privatisations up to a point and now opposes them. Which ones did he support, because from what he has said it is plain that he supported some?

§ Mr. Foster

That was an entertaining intervention, to which I shall not respond.

This privatisation reminds me of the Deputy Prime Minister's plan to sell off the Post Office.

§ Mr. Waterson

Hear, hear.

§ Mr. Foster

Someone still supports that sell-off. The Post Office is profitable, efficient and competitive, but we 1287 were told that the status quo was not an option and that privatisation was necessary to allow the Post Office to compete in wider markets and to borrow for investment in the private sector. The Deputy Prime Minister had to back down because there was not a majority in the House for his scheme. That also applies to HMSO, because there is no majority in either House for privatisation. If the Chancellor of the Duchy gets his way, that may never be tested because primary legislation is not required.

I understand that retaining a residual HMSO to administer Crown copyright and to fulfil the functions of the Queen's printer avoids the need for primary legislation. There is some suggestion of secondary legislation connected with the trading fund, but that might involve only a one-and-a-half-hour debate in Committee. No doubt the Chancellor of the Duchy hopes to sneak this measure through Parliament without a vote, and I can understand why. It was clear from the exchanges on the statement that many Conservative Members are not enthusiastic about his plan. If primary legislation were necessary, I am sure that the Government would not proceed.

As the chairman of the Tory party admitted before the Queen's Speech, most of its measures were designed to smoke out the Opposition. Selling off HMSO fails that test because it smokes out those few Conservative Members of the sensible tendency. For that reason, heaven and hell will be moved to prevent a vote. However, in the November issue of "Public Sector Purchasing" the Chancellor of the Duchy said that the new arrangements for HMSO would not proceed without Parliament's approval. That must mean a vote in both Houses, because I know of no other test for Parliament's approval. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy give both Houses a chance to vote on this measure, which impinges on every hon. Member? Perhaps he would care to respond.

§ Mr. Freeman

I thought that I had dealt fully and fairly with that issue but perhaps I can confirm that my advice is that no primary or secondary legislation is needed to permit the proposed transaction to come to fruition. I repeat for the sake of clarity the assurance about the retention of HMSO's business of supplying documents to Parliament as an integral part of HMSO. Parliament must be satisfied about the supply contract for that future business. As I have said, that is a prerequisite for completing the transaction.

§ Mr. Foster

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that response, but he did not make clear whether there will be a vote in both Houses.

§ Sir Patrick Cormack

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is taken in that spirit and I am sure that there has to be a vote.

§ Mr. Foster

I am relieved to hear that, but we shall see.

§ Mr. Mark Robinson

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Foster

Perhaps I may be allowed to finish this point, and then I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

The Chancellor of the Duchy believed that if he could convince the House of Commons Commission or the Select Committee on Finance and Services he would be 1288 home and dry. That is clear from his privatisation time schedule. I am not arguing that hon. Members mistrust the Commission or the domestic Committees to conduct detailed negotiations on our behalf and to safeguard the interests of hon. Members. The guarantees that were sought by Madam Speaker in her letter of 28 November to the Leader of the House are comprehensive, although I am sure that Madam Speaker would consider adding other requirements to satisfy the House.

§ Mr. Robinson

Is it not open, through the usual channels, to the Opposition to force a vote on any issue on a Supply day?

§ Mr. Foster

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that may happen if the Chancellor of the Duchy decides to deny the House a vote. The right hon. Gentleman believed—but I have covered that bit. [Interruption.] That is what comes of spending 10 years in the Whips Office.

I sense from the mood of the House that hon. Members are unwilling to contract out this decision to the Commission or to the domestic Committees. I think that hon. Members will insist on deciding the issue themselves. The Chancellor of the Duchy intends that parliamentary approval should apply only to the terms of a legally binding contract, which will succeed the new supply and service agreement if privatisation goes ahead. That is clear from the right hon. Gentleman's reply to Madam Speaker.

Both Houses will wish to decide on the principle of this privatisation, and I shall explain why. First, HMSO's contract with Parliament is its most prestigious. The Government will not consider privatisation without that contract and, of course, the contract enhances the value of HMSO to a potential purchaser. However, the contract is equally important to HMSO: its services to Parliament are an integral part of the whole operation, which is why management and staff wish HMSO to remain an entity. The Chancellor of the Duchy claims to have been persuaded by that argument, but his wish to keep HMSO as an entity is driven more by the exigencies of his timetable than by any wish to satisfy management and staff. A broken-up HMSO would take longer to privatise, and the right hon. Gentleman's deadline of July 1996 may be unattainable if the House authorities cannot complete the essential preparatory work before that date. Any slippage might send the sell-off into the buffers of a general election.

No doubt, all Conservative Members will have been intrigued by yesterday's front page of The Sunday Times, which says:

Major orders alert for early election John Major has placed ministers and Conservative Central Office on 'amber alert' for a general election next autumn, six months before his term has to end in May 1997. They are probably packing their bags now to get back to their constituencies and prepare for Opposition.

§ Sir Patrick Cormack

For Christmas.

§ Mr. Foster

Or for Christmas, but if this move were scuppered by an early general election, all the additional work imposed on the House authorities by privatisation would have been for nothing because, without privatisation, a legally binding contract would be unnecessary. 1289 The House authorities have only just concluded a new supply and service agreement. If HMSO. remains in the public sector, that agreement would continue for, say, four years. Concluding that agreement has been most time consuming for the House authorities. Drawing up a legally binding contract will prove even more arduous. Doubts have been expressed as to whether that work can be concluded to meet the requirements of the Chancellor's self-imposed timetable.

Hon. Members are entitled to ask whether any estimate has been made of the additional costs imposed on both Houses by the Government's plan. Will the House require additional members of staff? Has that additional expenditure been budgeted for? If not, can those extra demands be met? If so, what work will have to be deferred to meet those demands? Small wonder that, on 9 December, the front page of the Financial Times revealed a furious row between the House authorities and the Government about this scheme.

Perhaps we should ask an even more fundamental question: what right have the Government to impose extra costs on both Houses without either House being able to decide the issue from which those additional costs arise? Arguably, on that point alone, the Chancellor is under a moral, if not a legal or constitutional, obligation, to let Parliament decide whether it wants those unnecessary costs imposed by an unnecessary privatisation.

The next argument goes to the heart of the unease expressed by Parliament about the dilution of ministerial accountability because of the next steps agency initiative, let alone full-blown privatisation. At present, if hon. Members are dissatisfied with HMSO's standard of service, the Chancellor of the Duchy, as Minister with responsibility for public service, is accountable to the House. He will take some remedial action and report to the House. Here we must ask him how many hon. Members have complained about the service from HMSO. Has any formal complaint been lodged by the House authorities? If none, I suggest that the Chancellor of the Duchy should act on the principle, "If it isn't broken, don't mend it!"

What happens to ministerial accountability upon privatisation? Is the Chancellor still responsible or does that responsibility pass to the people who have signed the legally binding contract? Who will answer to the House? Precisely what sanctions are available, by whom and under what circumstances? In the exchanges on his statement, the Chancellor mentioned suspension of the contract, but surely that is unsatisfactory. The House cannot function without its essential papers. Who will serve the House while the contract is suspended? No other organisation could possibly fulfil the contract's terms on an interim or ad hoc basis.

Those are crucial issues. Can the House tolerate any dilution of ministerial accountability or a suspension of a legally binding contract as a sanction for non-fulfilment? It is clear that those issues arise only because of the privatisation of HMSO. That is why the House must be allowed to vote on the principle of privatisation.

There are other reasons why the House must exercise that right. Two hundred years ago, HMSO was set up to stamp out corruption in public sector purchasing. Because it is a market leader, HMSO is able to use the public sector's purchasing power to hold down prices. Because it acts as an independent broker, HMSO is able to spread 1290 purchasing across a wide range of firms, rather than concentrating work in a few favoured companies. If HMSO is privatised, the public sector will not benefit from those advantages.

During the whole of that 200 years, HMSO has served Government and Parliament, while maintaining the highest standards of confidentiality and meeting the most exacting deadlines required by Parliament. Will the Chancellor tell the House if HMSO has ever been investigated by the National Audit Office or the Public Accounts Committee for maladministration or for falling down on a matter of financial probity?

In January last year, the all-party House of Commons Public Accounts Committee produced one of its most critical reports about the decline in standards of administration and financial probity. The Committee said:

In recent years we have seen and reported on a number of failures in administrative and financial systems and contracts within departments and other public bodies which have led to money being wasted or otherwise improperly spent. These failings represent a departure from the standards of public conduct which have been established during the past 140 years. Most of those cases arose because business men tried to short circuit administrative and financial procedures. The Government have been so dogged by allegations of sleaze that citizens no longer trust the system and we come to this pretty pass today when the lottery regulator does not even know that his behaviour is improper.

By this reckless plan, the Chancellor of the Duchy runs serious risks with HMSO's impeccable reputation. After privatisation, will HMSO still be subject to examination by the National Audit Office or the Public Accounts Committee? The Government have sullied the name of the public services by intemperate pursuit of private sector values, but they have no right to risk Parliament's name in the same way.

As a security printer, HMSO produces a wide range of security and "in confidence" papers such as the Budget. HMSO has an unprecedented record. No leaks have been attributed to it. Can the private sector guarantee to match that record? From time to time, the nature of such papers can jeopardise national security, so high is the risk. That is important to the House, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will recognise. Of course, Conservative Members will point to all sorts of market-sensitive information printed in the private sector as evidence that security printing can be handled just as well after privatisation. Indeed, in the exchanges following the statement, the Chancellor mentioned that some of the Budget papers are already subcontracted to the private sector. What he failed to mention—this is crucial—was that it was subcontracted only under the strict control of civil servants at HMSO.

§ Mr. Waterson

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Is he not aware that some highly reputable companies in the private sector, including some in my own constituency, are engaged in security printing day in and day out and conform to high standards of product quality and security? Surely he is not restating the old Labour notion "public sector good, private sector bad"?

§ Mr. Foster

I was not saying that; I was under the impression that the Conservative party was saying the contrary—"private sector good, public sector bad". 1291 Departments may of course choose not to use the privatised HMSO for their security documents. Perhaps the Chancellor will tell the House whether it is true that the royal military college at Sandhurst has already stopped using HMSO for some of its security documents, because it could not be confident about the security of a privatised HMSO. Perhaps he could also confirm that the Ministry of Defence is already radically reviewing its relationship with a privatised HMSO. [Interruption.] Someone obviously hopes so. When one bears in mind the fact that Ministry of Defence contracts account for nearly 50 per cent. of HMSO's revenues, could not the privatisation be rather dangerous? Could not the privatisation be attacking HMSO's core business, and would not that totally scupper the Chancellor's argument that privatisation is necessary for HMSO to sell in wider markets?

I have dealt with the direct risks to services to Parliament; let us now examine the indirect risks. The first is the sale itself. The Chancellor wishes HMSO to be sold as a whole, apart from the residual HMSO. That might be his intention, but there has been a significant change of emphasis from what he said in evidence to the Finance and Services Select Committee to what he said in his statement. He said the same thing tonight. The worrying phrase is:

in any event we would not separate the publishing and printing businesses". I am sure that the Chancellor is aware that HMSO is much larger than just the printing and publishing business. Perhaps he is unaware that the statement, which he thinks is reassuring, is actually quite worrying to the staff of HMSO.

§ Mr. Freeman

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that my statement represented a change since giving evidence to the Finance and Services Select Committee. The change was based on the advice of consultants, who recommended not only offering the business as a whole but in any case—whatever the response—not separating the printing and publishing business. Some might say that that represents an advance. I hope that it is a welcome change and that it gives greater assurance not only to the House but to the management and staff of HMSO.

§ Mr. Foster

I do not think that the staff will find that reassuring. They are completely committed to HMSO surviving as an entity. The Minister re-emphasising that he would not in any event separate the publishing and printing business will certainly not be the kind of reassurance that he imagines that it will be. Under the exigencies of having to push through a sale before the general election, surely it is possible that the Chancellor will change his mind even more—perhaps his consultants will advise him again.

Even if the Chancellor succeeds in selling HMSO as an entity, what guarantee is there that it will remain an entity for long? Rumour has it that a finance house will be the most likely purchaser. The purchase would be made with a view to flotation in two or three years' time. What guarantee is there that the new owner would not hive off bits of the business? Indeed, wringing out of HMSO's £340 million turnover the kind of profit that I have heard mentioned could be achieved only by hiving off the least 1292 profitable and concentrating on the most profitable bits of the business. Redundancies would inevitably follow. On that very subject, the Chancellor said that there would be no automatic redundancies. What does that mean?

What guarantee can the Chancellor of the Duchy give that the company would not fall into foreign ownership, which would be unacceptable to Parliament? He will recall that Madam Speaker's letter made special mention of that. What guarantee can he give that the new owner would not be driven by the market to look for cheaper and poorer quality services to Parliament? The interests of the City coincide only rarely with the public interest. Despite his good intentions, the market might exert pressures opposing Parliament's wish to make its papers more widely and cheaply available.

For all those reasons, both Houses should have the opportunity to vote on the issue, not only on the narrow terms of the legally binding contract. Those reasons are sufficient for the new Public Service Select Committee to investigate thoroughly the risks to parliamentary services, but the Committee will be able to range more widely.

For example, the thrust of the Chancellor of the Duchy's argument is that HMSO's public sector market is declining and that privatisation will enable HMSO to sell in wider markets and borrow for investment in the private sector. When challenged as to why the Government will not arrange for HMSO to operate with full commercial freedom in the public sector, he responds that that is not Government policy. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) want to intervene?

§ Mr. Robert G. Hughes

I have made my point.

§ Mr. Foster

I think that the hon. Gentleman said that it was daft.

Frankly, that is not good enough. The Chancellor of the Duchy is forcing through an unnecessary and unwanted privatisation—it is certainly unwanted by the staff, 95 per cent. of whom voted against it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, and we would probably find that it was unwanted by both Houses of Parliament, if they were allowed to vote. He is forcing it through on the pretext that there is no alternative, but he has not even examined the options. Will he confirm that this option was not one of those in the terms of reference given to the consultants who advised him?

HMSO staff are proud of their record in the public sector. It has met all the targets set by central Government and undergone fundamental change in the past 15 years, becoming a trading fund in 1980 and a next steps agency in 1988. It has been trading commercially since 1980 and with increasing commercial freedom as it has responded to competition from the private sector. All the changes have been negotiated with the co-operation of the staff. They are proud of their record and take pride in the high-quality service that they provide to Government and Parliament. They want HMSO to remain in the public sector.

§ Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)

Is my hon. Friend not filled with despair by the fact that we have a Government who are so little conscious of the importance of our sovereign Parliament that they are prepared to hand the printing of something as vital as the 1293 papers that flow from Parliament to a private firm, not because that is necessary but for the sake of a spurious argument about profit?

§ Mr. Foster

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Of course we understand—

§ Mr. Bernard Jenkin (Colchester, North)

It was not very helpful.

§ Mr. Foster

We are one party, unlike the Conservative party. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The whole scheme is being driven by the dogma that HMSO must be put into the private sector if it is to succeed in future. [Interruption.] I am addressing the whole argument. The Chancellor of the Duchy fails to address that argument, which is why I want him to refer the matter to the new Public Service Select Committee.

The Select Committee should also examine the costs of privatisation. For example, what has been paid to consultants and advisers so far? What is the Government's estimate of additional fees before the sale is complete? How much will privatisation cost HMSO in staff time? How much investment has been carried out already in preparation for privatisation? How far is the low profit in last year's accounts due to exceptional redundancy payments in preparation for privatisation? How much is the preparation for privatisation costing both Houses and will that be taken into account in the contract? How much will be lost to the taxpayer by sacrificing a stream of profits year on year for a one-off contribution from the sale? How far has HMSO's performance been affected by two or three years of uncertainty and the resulting staff demoralisation? How much will be lost to the taxpayer by selling off valuable assets at knock-down prices to secure a quick sale? Is this a good time to sell in view of last year's poor results?

I shall deal now with the issue of European law, and shall touch on a couple of matters related to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. I understand that the House of Commons operates under the provisions of the public service contracts regulations of 1993, which require tender procedures for contracts of service. That may mean that the House could not commit itself in advance to a contract with a privatised HMSO.

I understand, however, that if a contract were entered into before privatisation and transferred as part of the sale, the regulations would not apply. If so, that might contravene European law. In answer to my question during his statement, the Chancellor of the Duchy responded that he was advised that that was not a problem. Will he publish the points on which he sought advice and the advice that he has been given? I shall certainly publish advice that I have received from lawyers advising the trade unions, which suggests that there may be some conflict with European law.

For the Chancellor of the Duchy knowingly to flout European law might make him some kind of a hero with his Euro-sceptics, but it would be quite wrong for him to involve the House authorities in a breach of European law, and wrong for him to involve the legislature in such a breach without a vote in both Houses.

The Chancellor of the Duchy has confirmed that TUPE will apply and we welcome that—although, understandably, staff are suspicious of how long the terms 1294 and conditions of employment will be maintained under the new owner. Pensions, of course, are not covered by TUPE. Although the requirement is said to be "broadly comparable" to the civil service scheme, there are great concerns about what that will mean in practice.

The scheme should not go ahead without a vote in both Houses of Parliament. It should be referred to the new Public Service Select Committee for a thorough examination of the risks to services to Parliament, of the costs of privatisation and of the feasibility of giving HMSO full commercial freedom in the public sector.

The Chancellor must be aware that his scheme is deeply unpopular with HMSO staff. He is also clearly not the blue-eyed boy with the House authorities. His scheme is unpopular with all Opposition parties, and many of his Back Benchers are reluctant supporters. Perhaps he should observe Lord Healey's first law of holes—when one is in a hole, stop digging. That at least would bring relief to the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), who would not have to be a Norfolk turkey voting for an early Christmas. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman's Government want to present him oven-ready to the voters and he has been stuffed by the Chancellor of the Duchy. No wonder he is doing the turkey trot. Who would be a Tory candidate in Norwich if this madcap scheme went through?

§ Mr. Paul Channon (Southend, West)

The House has had a treat that it has not had nearly frequently enough in recent years: a speech by the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster). I cannot say that I agree with everything that he said. Indeed, it could be argued that a speech of 37 minutes was a trifle long for a debate of this length. Chief Whips have said that to me on other occasions, but perhaps different standards apply to those who no longer have that great responsibility.

I shall be extremely brief, unlike some, since my job is to report on the Minister's appearance in front of the Select Committee on Finance and Services, to which the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland was good enough to make reference. I note that the right hon. Gentleman now wants to send the report to be examined in great detail by the Public Service Select Committee. The more the merrier I suppose. If my Committee were thereby relieved of another duty, I do not suppose that the Committee's members would mind too much.

But, in fairness to the House, I should say that the appearance of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave us quite a bit of comfort because he answered all the questions that we put to him and showed no reluctance whatever to appear. Indeed, he has not shown any reluctance to appear in the House, either for the recent statement or this week's debate.

If I understand the remarks of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, he says that we must have a vote on the issue. I would not necessarily mind that. I do not see how a vote could be stopped if hon. Members wanted it. As the right hon. Gentleman said, if necessary, the Opposition can use a Supply day. If those in the House want to vote they will vote. If they do not want to vote, they will not vote. It does not seem to be a particularly difficult thing for which to campaign.

There are differing views across the Floor of the House about the merits of privatisation and how it has worked on various occasions in various industries in the past, but 1295 that is not of great importance to me or, indeed, to the members of my Committee. Whatever our individual views on privatisation, what matters is what effect this particular privatisation would have on the House of Commons.

If we were satisfied that the House of Commons' reputation would be damaged, that the service to the House of Commons would be severely damaged or on other such grave matters, regardless of party affiliation, we would be right to be against the proposal. My Committee therefore examined the proposal and took evidence from the Chancellor in order to try to address the very natural doubts and worries felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the privatisation of the stationery office.

I accept what the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland says about the excellent service that the stationery office gives and has given for many years. I pay my tribute to it. But I do not want hon. Members to go away imagining that it has always been roses dealing with the stationery office in this House. When I was a Minister responsible for the stationery office, again and again statements were made and questions were asked because papers did not appear on time. Indeed, the same thing happened to my immediate predecessors in the Labour Government. So being in the public sector was not always a safeguard that things would be all right with the stationery office.

§ Mr. Michael J. Martin (Glasgow, Springburn)

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the absence of documents is a common complaint in Standing Committees? It is important to ensure that the record of the previous sittings is available to hon. Members serving on those Committees. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that hon. Members often raise points of order because the Hansard for the previous Tuesday or Thursday is not available?

§ Mr. Channon

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right. It is some years since I raised a point of order in a Standing Committee, and I hope that opportunity will not arise again for quite a while.

I was the Minister under whose regime and benevolent rule the stationery office became a trading agency, to which the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland referred with pleasure.

We have seen in Hansard the letter from Madam Speaker containing 12 paragraphs of conditions that she thinks are necessary before the House could agree to a privatisation scheme. It is no secret that the matter was debated in the Commission, nor is it any secret that the matter was debated in the Finance and Services Select Committee—the relevant papers are published. I recall no resistance to the suggestion that the Minister should make a statement. I recall no resistance to the suggestion that there should be a debate. The very fact of a debate implies that, as a possible result of it, there might be a vote. Such a vote could easily be arranged in the future.

All I want to ask is whether my right hon. Friend can repeat the assurance he gave to the House on a previous occasion. Can he repeat that he will not proceed with the privatisation of the stationery office unless he can conscientiously convince the House that the 12 points of 1296 reservation that the Speaker made in her letter will be met in full? My right hon. Friend has already given us that undertaking, but I think that he must give it again to the House tonight. The House can then come to a fair judgment about the future. If those assurances cannot be given, I am sure that the House will not wish to proceed with the privatisation. If my right hon. Friend gives that assurance, I for one will be happy, at lea