| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Chris Davies (Littleborough and Saddleworth): Will the Minister give a similar guarantee--if guarantee it can be called, and I suspect that it cannot--to the employees of HMSO in London and Chadderton?
Mr. Freeman: I have visited a number of HMSO's operations, but not Chadderton. There is also the Parliamentary Press and the distribution facility atNine Elms. I am not aware of precisely what goes on at all operations, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman is. I would not wish to commit myself at this stage. If he would care to table a question, I should be happy to answer it.
The House will be aware that there is no need for legislation to effect the sale of HMSO's assets. However, I recognise that there will be a need to wind up the HMSO trading fund, and to that end the Government undertake to introduce the necessary order under section 6 of the Government Trading Act 1990 simultaneously with the sale.
I now come to the need to make arrangements for the future provision of services to this House and another place. I shall first deal with the point made by myhon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire(Sir P. Cormack) in our last debate on the matter, when he asked about the possibility of separating out Parliamentary Press in south London and retaining its ownership in the public sector.
I do not believe that such a separation would be wise. Not all parliamentary business is dealt with at Parliamentary Press and not all the work of that press is
for Parliament. There is no one-to-one relationship. Moreover, although 90 per cent. of the work of Parliamentary Press is for Parliament, its presses are only one third loaded, and more work--for example, private sector work--is needed to achieve fuller efficiency and cheaper prices for Parliament.
As the House will be aware, we will invite customers of HMSO to agree legally enforceable contracts with the Stationery Office, which will be assigned to the new owner at the point of sale. Such contracts can specify all aspects of a customer's requirements, including matters such as price, standards of service and, in the case of publishing services, arrangements to ensure satisfactory distribution. Those arrangements should give full assurance to customers that they will continue to receive the high level of service for which HMSO has become renowned.
It will, of course, be very much in the interests of the new owner of the business to continue to meet its customers' needs. That is especially true of work that the privatised business will perform for Parliament, including statutory business. No owner would wish to jeopardise relations with such a valuable customer accounting for some 10 per cent. of turnover. I intend that the safeguards requested by Madam Speaker in her letter to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House last November, together with other concerns raised by hon. Members, will be incorporated in the draft contract.
In particular, the draft contract provides that the House has the right to terminate it upon any change of ownership of the privatised business. The importance of parliamentary work to the business is such that no prospective owner would buy it unless Parliament's custom were assured, so this part of the contract amounts to an effective veto on changes of ownership.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire):
My right hon. Friend is dealing with this matter with his customary impeccable courtesy and thoroughness. However, can he not see that it is impossible to guarantee what might happen after the first sale? It is impossible to guarantee that a Maxwell or a Murdoch--to name one crooked potential purchaser, and another who, although not crooked, I would not want to have running Parliamentary Press--could not buy the business at a subsequent stage. Although I do not for a moment impugn the good faith and good intentions of my right hon. Friend, this is a matter of very real concern.
Mr. Freeman:
My hon. Friend is right; he has put his finger on a matter of legitimate concern. I have some suggestions to put to the House. I do not wish to portray my position as inflexible or as not anxious to consider constructive suggestions. We wish to protect the position of this House and the other place.
One suggestion is to consider alternative suppliers to a second owner who might be unacceptable or who, indeed, might withdraw from providing parliamentary services.I understand that there are three or four City printers within a similar distance of the House as Parliamentary Press. The House will be aware of the notion that any acceptable supplier of parliamentary services should be within three miles of the House, so I am using that measure of distance.
No printer has exactly the same mix of plant and equipment as HMSO, but between them the printers are capable of taking on the work load. Of course, in the
absence of competition for Parliament's work,I accept that the precise capability does not exist outside HMSO. However, there are printers in London who would no doubt be keen to invest on the basis of contracts with the Houses of Parliament.
By the time the first contracts are due for renewal, advances in printing technology are expected to have increased the range of likely competitors. I freely acknowledge the need for a contractual provision for sufficient notice of any change in ownership or unilateral desire to change the quality of service to this House, to allow the House to change its supplier if it so wishes. The draft also suggests a means by which this House could be guaranteed real savings year on year as technological improvements are introduced.
I am pleased to note that the price of the daily Hansard has fallen from £7.50 in 1991--the last time we debated this, my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire explained why it rose to that level--to £5 in 1996, andI hope that the price can fall further in real terms.
Of course, the draft contracts will require careful examination, and no doubt amendment, before they are ready for the House authorities to consider and seek approval. It is for this House and another place to determine their requirements and the Government's role is to offer our resources to assist in bringing them into contractual form and incorporating them in the sale.
I can reassure the House that the Government attach the utmost importance to the services that Parliament receives from HMSO. I repeat the assurance that I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire:I look forward to constructive discussions on how we can satisfy not only my hon. Friend but the House in general on the security of suitable services to the House--not only on price but, more important, on quality, something that sometimes cannot be expressed accurately and comprehensively in a contract.
I understand concerns regarding accountability for those arrangements. In the interests of time, and as I am aware that many hon. Members wish to speak, I shall summarise the points that I had intended to make at greater length. It is important to appreciate that the chief executive of HMSO is responsible for the day-to-day operations. I am accountable to the House for policy and for answering questions put to me by hon. Members.
Mr. Dalyell:
The Minister will recollect that, the last time we debated this matter, there was a good deal of discussion about consultation with and advice from the Department of the Clerk of the House. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is having to curtail his speech and that he may have originally intended to cover that point. Has there been consultation with the Clerk's Department and, if so, has it given its full-hearted approval?
Mr. Freeman:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising an important point that also concerned Madam Speaker. I will explain the present position. It has always been my intention and that of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to be as helpful as possible. Madam Speaker has made it quite clear--and I fully accept--that it is for the Government, not Officers of the
My understanding is that it was to assist the House of Commons Commission--although I understand that it has not yet considered a draft contract--that the Officers were to have offered their comments on early drafts of the contract. It was to clarify and question. They are not responsible for policy; I am. The hon. Member for Linlithgow serves a good purpose by enabling me to distinguish precisely what the respective responsibilities are.
Mr. Dalyell:
Were the Officers' comments taken?
Mr. Freeman:
I was not present at those discussions. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I have no idea what the Officials of the House have said, nor would it be right for me to comment on behalf of the House of Commons Commission or Officials. The respective responsibilities and the constitutional position are clear.
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed):
The Commission would be surprised if Officers of the House were invited to give views about the desirability of privatisation. It was not at all in that respect that they were assisting the Commission; they were making sure that the drafts that were being considered were in a form that was likely to meet the House's requirements. Both the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and I have emphasised that it can be only in that role that the Clerks assist the process.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |