Building Research Establishment (Hansard, 27 February 1997)

§ Mr. Nick Raynsford (Greenwich)

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the Government's handling of the privatisation of the Building Research Establishment. I have written to you about this matter, Madam Speaker.

Over the past few weeks, it has become clear from a number of sources—including replies to parliamentary questions—that the two short-listed bidders to acquire the BRE were not competing fairly on a level playing field. This has clearly prejudiced the prospects of the external bidder and calls into question the validity of the Government's decision to offer the BRE for sale to the in-house bid team.

Even more serious in my view is the evidence that the House has been misled on this issue. In a reply on 18 February, the Minister stated that his Department had received no representations about the failure to maintain a level playing field between the two short-listed bidders. This is simply not correct. On 15 January this year, I wrote to the permanent secretary in the Department to express serious reservations about the way in which the BRE's privatisation was being handled and to highlight concerns that the level playing field between the different bidders had been undermined. The claim that the Department had received no representations on the issue is simply not believable.

Secondly, the Minister claimed in a reply on 13 February that no documentation relating to the future BRE group was made available to any bidder. The future BRE group was an internal review group set up by the BRE at the end of 1995 to examine a range of issues relating to the organisation's income, efficiency and expenditure, and its findings clearly would be of considerable interest and relevance to potential bidders. In a subsequent parliamentary answer on 24 February, the Minister revealed that five members of the future BRE group were also members of the in-house bid team, and so would have had access to this documentation. This once again indicates the absence of a proper level playing field between the two short-listed bidders. There is also a clear contradiction between the answers given by the Minister on 13 and 24 February.

I believe that this involves a serious failure to give full and straightforward answers to parliamentary questions. Accordingly, I wrote to the Minister on 25 February asking for an explanation and an early response. I also asked for an undertaking that, in the meantime, no action would be taken to progress the sale. This letter was faxed to the Minister's office early on Tuesday morning. To date, I have received no reply. I now learn that the Government are hoping to complete the sale of the BRE to the in-house bid team by the end of the month. That means that it is essential for this issue to be debated immediately if these matters are to be considered by the House before contracts are signed—hence my request for an early debate.

455 Madam Speaker, I believe that these issues fall four-square within the provisions of Standing Order No. 20. This is a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, and I hope that you will give my request sympathetic consideration.