---

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

18 Dec 1995 : Column 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

18 Dec 1995 : Column 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?

8.5 pm

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

18 Dec 1995 : Column 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.

---