HC Deb 22 June 1965 vol 714 cc1438-40
1. Mr. Barnett

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the Finance Bill was not available for sale to the public in Manchester on Tuesday, 27th April, when it was available in London; and, in view of the importance of Manchester as a major commercial centre, if he will give an assurance that, in future, when Bills or other important documents are published, the provinces are treated no differently from London.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot)

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on 3rd May to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern).

Mr. Barnett

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are many people in Manchester and district who are just about fed up with being treated as a second-class area compared with London—indeed, this applies to the provinces generally—and is it not time in this scientific age that the provinces were treated at least as fairly as London itself?

Mr. MacDermot

There is no desire to distinguish between the Metropolis and the provinces in this matter, but there are real practical difficulties both of Parliamentary Privilege and of the need for security. However, I am looking into this and doing all I can to eliminate as far as possible any gap between the time of publication in London and publication elsewhere. In most cases the gap is eliminated completely, but I am seeing what can be done in the other cases.

Mr. Milne

Will the Minister bear in mind the needs of Newcastle-upon-Tyne and district in this matter and look at the possibility of opening a retail sales office of Her Majesty's Stationery Office in this area?

Mr. MacDermot

That is a separate Question.

Mr. William Clark

Would not the Financial Secretary agree that one of the main reasons for delay is that the Government keep putting down Amendments at such a substantially late hour?

Mr. MacDermot

It has nothing to do with Amendments. What we are dealing with here is publication of the Bill itself. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will realise the security considerations involved in the publication of a Finance Bill.

12. Mr. Wingfield Digby

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the Stationery Office charge for a copy of the Finance Bill is 14s. for 226 pages, compared with 6s. for 104 pages in 1963 and 2s. 6d. for 39 pages in 1964; and to what extent this increase is due to higher costs and to higher profits, respectively.

Mr. MacDermot

Bills and other Parliamentary papers are priced to cover costs without making a profit. The 1965 Finance Bill costs more than those of 1963 and 1964 because it is longer and printing costs have gone up; but the price per page is lower than 1964.

Mr. Digby

While recognising that it would be ridiculous to expect the price of anything to go down under the present Administration, may I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he is aware that this is negligible compared with the ultimate harm which the Bill is likely to do to the country?

Mr. MacDermot

The hon. Member has not understood. The cost per page has gone down. This is an interesting example of the economies of scale.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis

Has the hon. and learned Gentleman calculated how much the Treasury could recoup if he collected together all the old copies of the Bill and of the Amendments which have been printed and sold them for salvage?

Mr. MacDermot

Another interesting fact is that this Bill has proved a best seller and that, despite our intention not to make profits, it looks as if we are going to make quite a bit.