| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston): Yes.
Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman is not living in the real world.
Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam): I welcome the news about the privatisation of HMSO. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is undoubtedly the best way to protect jobs, because HMSO will be able to seek greater commercial freedom? Will he suggest that the staff of HMSO contact the Crown Agents staff, who last summer gained their freedom from the Government and have now moved into a much more secure future?
Mr. Freeman: That is an interesting idea. Other work that I would like HMSO to undertake, in addition to private sector work, is some of the European Commission's and European Parliament's work. We have an extremely efficient parliamentary press--it is called a parliamentary press, but it does other work--and I would like to see its machines properly loaded and more people employed in south London, not fewer.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): Could it not be said that the Minister has condemned his case from his own mouth? What reason is there to privatise something that works efficiently and well in the interests of the House? Why cannot a public sector contractor enter the private sector market to secure further work if it wants? It can do so on favourable and equal terms.
Mr. Bermingham: As my hon. Friend says, it does. There is no necessity for privatisation. Is it not just dogma overcoming intelligence?
Mr. Freeman: The philosophy pursued by the Government consistently over the past 16 years has been,
where there is a state corporation or enterprise and we want its business to grow by taking on private sector business, for the business to be moved into private sector ownership, 51 per cent. or 100 per cent. I am never going to be able to convince Opposition Members about that approach.
We do not believe that the taxpayer, as the shareholder of the business, should subsidise or underwrite a business that unfairly competes with the rest of the private sector. There are many other advantages for example, removing Treasury control on investment and on running costs. I do not believe that that is appropriate for this business. I also firmly believe that, in the private sector, the management will be able to augment the skills, particularly of marketing and finance, which one does not normally associate with public sector bodies.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin (Colchester, North):
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are plenty of printers in the private sector that provide absolute accuracy and security to their clients in important matters such as printing reports and accounts and keeping the inside information secret until it is due to be published? Would they not resent, rightly, HMSO moving into their markets if it was underwritten by the taxpayer rather than operating on a commercial basis? Could he reassure employees that they might have the opportunity to have shares in the business, or in the business that purchases HMSO? Although the Labour party regrets every privatisation, the employees never do.
Mr. Freeman:
I particularly agree with my hon. Friend's last comment. It is appropriate for the management and staff of any business--public sector moving into the private sector or already there--to have an equity stake in that business or at least a share in the profitability of the business. I hope very much that it will prove possible for that to apply to HMSO. We shall see how the market responds.
Mr. Martin O'Neill (Clackmannan):
Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the Opposition's concern? He referred to TUPE, but when he was asked a detailed question, he could not answer. The whole point about TUPE is that it lasts, at most, for three months and can be abandoned thereafter. The experience of takeovers in the printing industry in particular has been that pension funds have been filched as soon as many of those companies have been taken over. We want a guarantee that the pension fund will be ring-fenced, above and beyond TUPE, so that there is no possibility, in the event of an unwanted privatisation, of the workers' money in the pension fund being filched by the new owners in the interests of shareholders elsewhere.
Mr. Freeman:
That is an important point. TUPE, of course, does not cover pensions and is a separate but emotive issue, as anyone who has had responsibility for public sector departments will know. I give an undertaking to the House that, specifically as regards pensions, but also as regards TUPE, whose provisions will apply--that is the advice that I have been given--I will address separately and specifically protection of the pension rights of those who work in the business. I have already given that assurance to the trade union representatives in Norwich.
Mr. Gary Waller (Keighley):
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Parliament will continue to have
Mr. Freeman:
I was merely alluding to the transaction's structure. I do not envisage that the residual body in my Department and the Cabinet Office would be referred to as HMSO. I imagine that the individual and his staff would be referred to as the Queen's Printer and would retain the Crown copyright.
It is not for me to comment on what the House may decide to do in terms of Internet access and publishing more documentation. Speaking on behalf of the Crown, I should like much greater access--this sits well with our views on open government--to Government documents. Of course, Ministers will control Crown copyright; that will not be a matter for the private sector printing and publishing business owner at least, or for the existing HMSO business. I hope that that satisfies my hon. Friend.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
In the past 35 minutes, the Minister has repeatedly used the phrase "acceptable to Parliament". If that means anything, it means acceptable to more than a majority of five in Parliament. Therefore, why does he not rely on a free vote? Will he deal with the question that was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) on security, which he, inadvertently no doubt, did not answer? What happens now if Budget statements are leaked? As I understand it, the printing side has never been guilty of any leaks because, of course, there are sanctions. In the new set-up, what sanctions will there be on security? Will he answer my hon. Friend, whose constituency this relates to, who asked a proper question on security?
Mr. Freeman:
Yes. On security, the hon. Gentleman is right. I cannot recall, certainly in the past 16 years, any specific problems with security in terms of printing Budget documents. The printing presses are sealed overnight and suitable security arrangements apply; I understand that, having printed the documents, staff remain on the premises. Those arrangements will continue. In the past, if there was a problem, I would be called to account and I would sack the management. In future, on the Budget, which is a Crown matter, the Treasury and myself acting on its behalf would take action under the terms of the contract with the printing and publishing business responsible for publishing Budget documents. We would either suspend the contract or seek redress, so in practical terms there is no difference.
Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South):
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, which will lead to increased job opportunities in HMSO, and should lead to increased investment where it is no longer subject to the dead hand of the Treasury. May I remind him that the people who talk about dogma are the very people who opposed the privatisation of BT, British Airways, British Steel, British Gas and all the other great public utilities? Will he not be seduced by those who call for a free vote,
Mr. Freeman:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his general support for the notion of privatisation.
Just to correct my answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I am advised that the vast majority of Budget documents are already printed by private sector contractors, and not by HMSO.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):
Does the Minister realise that he cuts a sorry figure today, trying to defend the indefensible? When he was asked a question about why he was doing this, he said that he was doing it because it was the Tory party's philosophy. The Government have had £80 billion selling off the nation's silver and now they have got down to this paltry little set-up--HMSO. Will it be the Mace next and the Dispatch Boxes? Will he give a guarantee that, if this thing goes through, the publishing firm that gets hold of HMSO will not include Haymarket Publishing Group, his gaffer's-- the Deputy Prime Minister's--firm, and Murdoch? Are they excluded?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |