| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Mandelson: Where are the sanctions?
Mr. Willetts: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand the power of a legal contract in terms of the quality and the enforceability of service that it can bring. The sanctions would be available through law rather than through arrangements within the public sector. The sanctions would be explicit, legally enforceable, contractual arrangements.
We have already made it clear that it is ultimately for the House to set that contract. We will work with officials of the House to ensure that it reflects the issues that have been legitimately raised in the debate.
Mr. Michael J. Martin:
It is all very well for the Minister to talk about a contract; but it is not a contract to deliver 20 pints of milk to the door of the House of Commons but one to deliver the record of the parliamentary proceedings. If that is held up even by a day, it can cause havoc and represents a great deal of work wasted by the dedicated Hansard staff.
Mr. Willetts:
That is why the contract could make it clear, for example, that local overnight production facilities should be available close to the House. These matters should be made explicit in a contract. Although this is a matter for the House rather than for the Government, I would suggest that there is potential for the House to set out clearly and enforce more rigorously the standards that it is rightly expecting.
Mr. Garrett:
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that the House would have a hand in the selection of the company to take over HMSO. How will that be done?
Mr. Willetts:
Through Madam Speaker, we have invited officials of the House to become involved in all stages of privatisation, including the selection of the final winning tender.
Mr. Dalyell:
Have they agreed?
Mr. Willetts:
Perhaps I might carry on.
Mr. Channon:
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Beith:
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Willetts:
I give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon).
Mr. Channon:
I may be interrupting the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). When dealing with the position of members of staff of the House, would it not be wrong for them to take part in that sort of decision? Surely they will be observers of, rather than active participants in, any such Committee.
Mr. Willetts:
This is ultimately a matter for the House--it is not a matter for the Government. I can only say that the Government have invited, through Madam Speaker, the officials of the House to become involved in the process. It is not for the Government ultimately to decide.
Mr. Dalyell:
Have they agreed?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse):
Order. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) must control himself. [Interruption.] Is the Minister giving way?
Mr. Willetts:
I give way to the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster).
Mr. Foster:
I am sorry to intervene, as I know that the Minister's time is short. However, this is a crucial point.
Mr. Willetts:
It is not for me to speak for the officials of the House. I have made clear on behalf of the Government that an invitation has been offered, but it is not for me to speak on behalf of the House. It would be impertinent for me to try to do that. That is why we have exchanged some important correspondence with Madam Speaker on this subject, but I am not going to try to tell the House how it should conduct its own affairs.
Mr. Beith:
May I make it clear on behalf of the House of Commons Commission that the invitation that the Commission received was for officials to take part in a process by which a contract would be prepared? The Commission would be willing to allow the officials to attend such a meeting as observers only, to make clear what the interests of the House are, and not as participants. The Commission has not yet considered the invitation--because it is entirely new--to officials to be involved in the selection of a company that might be entrusted with such a contract. That matter has not yet been considered.
Mr. Willetts:
It is very important that the House should be satisfied at all stages that the winning company meets the requirements that the House wishes to specify for the contract. That is ultimately a matter for the House, rather than for the Government. We, for our part, will do everything possible to ensure--
Mr. Garrett:
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Willetts:
I am afraid that I must make some progress. There are a lot of other points that I wish to cover, and I have only eight minutes remaining.
One of the other matters raised was the question of TUPE, and the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) asked questions on that subject. I can assure him that TUPE applies at the moment of transfer, and TUPE will apply in this case. There is no period of time attached to TUPE as it takes place at a specific moment. The reason why people reflect on a 90-day rule is that if any employer wishes to change the terms of employment of his or her employees, it is normally thought reasonable by the courts to offer that sort of period of notice. That is a separate matter from TUPE.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised the issue of security vetting. If a Government Department contracting with HMSO has an important security concern, it will be perfectly free to specify exactly what security vetting of individual employees is necessary for it to publish such documents, as it does at the moment. The hon. Gentleman also asked about consultation with the trade unions. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has already had one meeting with trade union representatives and he hopes to have further meetings with them in the new year.
The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) asked me about the arrangements for ensuring that the quality of public debate was encouraged--something about which both sides of the House care--by continuing the current arrangements whereby public libraries received government documents
at a discount. I am pleased to be able to give my hon. Friend the assurance that those arrangements will continue.
Underneath the variety of specific points raised in the debate, perfectly legitimately, there was a deeper problem. The problem is that, for the past 15 years, every time we have explained the merits of privatisation, the Opposition have steadfastly refused to understand them. The fears voiced by the Opposition have been proved false by events. Yet again, we had today the threadbare arguments that we have heard before every privatisation. The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland implied that private business men were sleazy and could not be trusted with money. We were told that the security requirements were such that it would be impossible for the requisite standards to be met by a private contractor. I must tell hon. Members that we can be proud that many of the world's banknotes are printed by private security printers in this country.
There is an assumption that only public ownership will do. There is an assumption that if one has a public policy objective, one has to own the means of production, distribution and supply and that, otherwise, one has no means of meeting those public policy objectives. That is our fundamental disagreement with the Labour party and it remains as clear now as it was when we embarked on privatisation 15 years ago.
Labour Members now ask why HMSO cannot enjoy greater market freedom to compete with the private sector while remaining within the public sector. That argument at least reflects a recognition that things cannot carry on as they are. Anyone who looks at the figures for HMSO over the past few years can understand why. In 1990, its turnover was £389 million. In 1994, its turnover was £351 million. In 1990, it had 3,400 employees; it now has 2,900. As currently constituted, subject to all the inevitable constraints of the public sector, the business will not be able to thrive. We offer the best prospect for the employees of HMSO to be part of a growing and expanding business.
It would simply not be acceptable to allow a public sector trading organisation, which borrows from the national loans fund--it has, incidentally, £30 million of public sector borrowing outstanding at present--to go out and compete with private sector printers or publishers. It would not be reasonable for a body that would not pay corporation tax to compete in the private sector. It would not be reasonable to expect Ministers, who are accountable to the House, to allow HMSO to take on commercial risks when those risks would ultimately be borne by the taxpayer.
The only way in which HMSO can enjoy the freedom that the Opposition now say they wish it to enjoy is for it to be part of the private sector. That is the only credible way forward. At the moment, HMSO faces increasing competitive pressure in its public sector marketplace. We have heard claims that the Ministry of Defence is now looking to market-test its publishing and printing requirements. I am not aware of that taking place as a result of the prospective privatisation of HMSO. It is what is going on throughout the public sector. The public sector is free to choose where it goes to purchase its printing and publishing services.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |