| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9.4 pm
Mr. Michael J. Martin (Glasgow, Springburn): The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) spoke at some length about privatisation, but this debate is not about privatisation in the usual sense. If the Government were serious about privatising HMSO, they would present a Bill to the House so that all hon. Members could debate the matter and consider the problems in detail both in Committee and on the Floor of the House.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is an honourable man--I have dealt with him before on transport--and he should admit that he agreed to a debate on the privatisation of HMSO, without a vote, only after sustained pressure from hon. Members and the Finance and Services Select Committee. I believe that there should be a debate with a vote--and that it should be a free vote. We are discussing the provision of services to the House. The decisions that we make in the months ahead will affect the future work of Members of Parliament, particularly Back Benchers.
When I was elected to the House in 1979, I did not realise that I could receive a transcript of the proceedings of Parliament within 12 hours of a debate taking place. Over the years, I have realised what an asset that facility is, not only to Ministers and Front-Bench spokespersons
but to Back Benchers like me. When constituents write to me and ask for my views and those of other hon. Members about an issue, I can reassure them about the matter and send them a copy of Hansard within a few days of its being debated here. The service is very useful for Back Benchers who do not have the civil service back-up Ministers enjoy.
HMSO's services were developed over hundreds of years, and I do not think that we should surrender them willingly. We have an old saying in the engineering profession: "If it works, don't fix it". Why are we seeking to fix something that works very effectively for us and for the people of this country?
Many hon. Members have spoken about the control that Parliament exercises over the pricing of Hansard. Not so long ago, the Administration Select Committee--of which I am Chairman--reached the unanimous decision that Hansard should be produced more cheaply for those who supply libraries, schools, universities and other academic institutions. That is possible only if we retain control of HMSO.
It must be cause for concern that the service might be delivered into the hands of private printers. Unlike some of my hon. Friends who want to speak in the debate, I have never worked in the printing industry. It has always seemed an uncertain industry--Maxwell comes to mind-- of ownership changes and asset stripping. I do not know whether the famous Lord Hanson had any influence over it--it is always argued in the tobacco industry in my Glasgow constituency that, if a company is profitable and has good industrial relations, there is no need to worry about it-- but lo and behold, because a company was on a certain site, a new owner could take away the facilities that it provided for the sake of making a quick buck.
At present, HMSO is an excellent asset with printing facilities across the river at Bermondsey. We might negotiate a contract with another printing company, but what will happen if the facilities move from Bermondsey to another part of London? That would make it difficult for Hansard to be delivered on time. We all know the problems of road transportation in London.
Hon. Members know that space in the House is precious; it is used by Officers of the House, Members, back-up staff and for many other purposes. The advantage of the facilities across the river is that they provide printing and storage. No contract, no matter how tightly it is drawn up, could ensure the continuation of those facilities.
The Canadian Parliament handed over its printing service to a private contractor and it is now an absolute disaster. New Zealand is also experiencing difficulties with private contractors, as are many other Parliaments. I am not arguing about privatisation--my views are well known--but, like every other hon. Member, I want to ensure that we keep the good facilities that we have. The dedicated Hansard staff service all the Committees and work night and day to ensure that the printer receives the material.
When there is a crisis, the House appreciates the work of Hansard. I recall the Falklands and the Gulf war when Ministers and Opposition spokesmen made certain comments that we wanted to see on the record before we proceeded--and we could within hours of the House rising. We have to ask ourselves whether we want to risk losing that facility. I do not want to run that risk and I shall vote against it.
Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury):
I shall begin by taking up one theme that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin)--public access to the documents produced by HMSO, notably Hansard, and the other papers it presently produces for the benefit of the House.
There will be considerable agreement on both sides of the House that the day-to-day coverage of Parliament provided by newspapers and the broadcast media falls below the standard that is desirable if we want the electorate to be informed about the issues that are debated in the House and the arguments that are presented by both sides of it.
Earlier today, I received a letter from the Buckinghamshire county librarian expressing some concerns to which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to respond when he makes his welcome debut at the Dispatch Box. I believe that that librarian speaks on behalf of other, similar, services in expressing anxiety about the possible impact of the proposals on the availability of Hansard and other parliamentary papers to the general public through libraries.
As the hon. Member for Springburn said, the present policy is to supply public libraries with HMSO publications, including reports of the House's proceedings, at discounted prices, with the aim of securing a properly informed electorate. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can reassure me that the Government intend to make binding arrangements for the discounts to be continued after privatisation.
I have no objection in principle to the privatisation of HMSO. It is, in my view, somewhat otiose to argue that only through the public sector can the House expect documents to be delivered on time and printed accurately. Those of us with experience in the private sector of the way in which our printing and publishing companies deal with documents such as annual reports, or companies' financial results, will know that that sector is perfectly capable of meeting the demanding standards that the House would wish to impose on it.
Some Opposition Members have tended to overlook the fact that the contract to produce parliamentary documents on behalf of the two Houses would be highly prized. The company would have every commercial incentive to ensure that it delivered a service to Parliament that would enable it--the publisher and printer--to boast about that service, and about its continuing contract with the House of Commons, when seeking business with other clients both here and abroad. I expect the pressures of the market to ensure the delivery of the high-quality service that the House expects.
I was grateful for the assurances that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was able to give about the procedure that will apply to the details of the proposed privatisation. I hope that Ministers will be able to give us more details of their thinking before long. I believe that it was the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) who spoke of the possible risk of a foreign publishing company's securing the business; I do not think that that, of itself, is to be feared. I imagine that, in any case, under European Community law it would be illegal for the Government--or, possibly, the House of Commons--to discriminate in favour of a United Kingdom company as against a company based in another European Union state.
This, however, is the important point. Will my hon. Friend the Minister assure us that all hon. Members will be informed in good time of the nature of the criteria that will apply in the judgment of the individual bids that are submitted?
Mr. Dalyell:
With a foreign company, what would happen to the stringent security arrangements that now apply to the employees of HMSO?
Mr. Lidington:
As I understand it, employees of a private sector company, whether it is British-owned, German-owned or American-owned, would be subject to the same process of law and to the same contractual obligations. Given the increasingly international nature of the publishing business, those are constraints of which the management of any company that sought business the Government and Parliament might offer would be well aware.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |