| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
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.
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
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:
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".
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:
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
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.
"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.
"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.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |