| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9.25 pm
Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West): The arguments that we have heard in opposition to the scheme--they have been advanced mainly by Opposition Members--revolve around whether they have confidence in HMSO staff being able to compete with other printers and publishers on an equal basis. It seems that they do not, although they dress up their arguments in various ways. I shall take up, first, a suggestion that we have heard before from Liberal Members.
This evening, the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies), said that, by remaining in the public sector, HMSO could compete with the private sector. He claimed that that would be entirely reasonable. We are told that HMSO lost millions of pounds in the past financial year. It is suggested that it could compete with private sector printers and publishers but would not be able to go bankrupt, that it would be able to borrow at lower rates than those available to the private sector and would not pay corporation tax. Apparently it would be perfectly reasonable for HMSO to be in competition with the private sector.
I note that the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth shakes his head. I listened closely to what he said. I begin to have a great deal of sympathy with friends of mine who were members of the Social Democratic party, who were in partnership with the Liberals. Some of them are now in the Labour party and others are in the Conservative party. They told me horrendous tales of the Walter Mitty economics that they had to deal with when trying to deal with the Liberals. If the Liberals believe that it is reasonable to remain in the public sector and to enjoy all the advantages that go with that while competing with the private sector, they are not living in the real world.
Mr. Chris Davies:
Does the hon. Gentleman recall my saying that a level playing field should be established and that it would be perfectly reasonable for HMSO to pay corporation tax? If he did not, perhaps he should wash out his ears.
Mr. Hughes:
Being rude does not strengthen the hon. Gentleman's argument. He says that he wants a level playing field, but he is prepared to accept everything that would make it uneven.
Members of HMSO's staff who are listening to the debate should understand that the Liberal party's approach is nonsense and could not possibly be implemented. It is not a serious proposition. It could never come to fruition. The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth does not serve the interests of his constituents. I have visited the Oldham works, and the staff there should not believe that the Liberals' approach is a runner.
Serious remarks have been made about Parliament's work. We must take seriously the publication of parliamentary papers. It is the fact, however, that all the
points made in Madam Speaker's letter have been answered. We are only 78 days into the new supply and service agreement, which is legally binding, and trying to overturn it in that time period is a bit premature, even for the modern Labour party.
The reality is that Parliament will be a major customer for whoever publishes Parliament's papers, takes over HMSO or gets the contract. If Parliament wants to lay down any criteria, such as that there should be a press in London and that that should be a part of the legally binding contract, as I think it should--I agree with others on that point--Parliament can do so.
The answer to the question of the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) is that the decision on who buys HMSO lies with the Government, but it also lies with Parliament--although I hope not with Parliament on the Floor of the House. If there is to be a serious attempt to express Parliament's interests and to ensure that we have a proper contract, it will have to be done not through a reference back to Parliament, but through Committees and, in particular, through the House of Commons Commission. If Parliament wants to lay down any of those criteria, it can do so, and it will have a decisive say in the matter because Parliament is such a large customer.
We have not really heard concern about parliamentary papers--[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) should not get too concerned about time--I am sure that he will get his quarter of an hour to speak. My hon. Friend the Minister has kindly allowed me a couple of minutes.
Mr. Peter Mandelson (Hartlepool):
Do not worry;I shall take it out of his time.
Mr. Hughes:
That is fine. He is happy with that because he can make extremely good points in a very short time, unlike some--unlike me, and unlike the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster).
Mr. Peter Mandelson (Hartlepool):
The Minister argued, when opening this debate, that commercial freedom for HMSO will simultaneously offer opportunities for its growth, bringing jobs and security to employees, and ensure that Parliament's continuing public service needs will be paramount in the future operation of HMSO. I believe that the Minister's argument was well meaning but wholly unconvincing.
I do not believe that the Minister can attempt to shoot a privatised HMSO into a commercial free orbit and keep it tied down by legally binding public service guy-ropes,
as he has sought to argue tonight. Instead of lifting off, a privatised HMSO will find it impossible to leave its launch pad, which will pose a serious threat to job security in HMSO, and, in the ensuing chaos, Parliament's vital needs will be a very bad casualty.
Since the proposal to privatise HMSO was first made, it has been understood and accepted that the measure and its effects on the supply of papers to Parliament will have to be acceptable to the House, regardless of the need for primary or secondary legislation. In our debate on18 December, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said:
It is, therefore, a serious indictment of the Government's handling of the matter that a debate in Government time was not arranged. Throughout, the Minister has shown an astonishing lack of understanding of the concern of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and even in this debate, initiated, I remind hon. Members, by the Opposition in our time, the Minister has failed abjectly--I say that in the nicest possible way--to offer any real assurances about the safeguarding of the services on which the House relies.
The conditions of service and the protection sought for the work of HMSO were clearly set out in Madam Speaker's letter to the Leader of the House last autumn. The House of Commons Commission, on behalf of which Madam Speaker wrote, was rightly drawn not on the principle of privatisation but merely on the consideration of the matter in relation to Parliament's requirements. The Commission could not have been more explicit. In contrast, the Minister tonight could not have been more evasive or unconvincing.
Let us remind ourselves of the concerns raised by the Commission. Madam Speaker's letter warned of the danger of a private sector owner experimenting with cheaper methods of providing the service presently provided by HMSO, leading to falling standards. The Minister has not given a guarantee that that will not happen, and he cannot.
The Commission insisted that staff of the House should be guaranteed adequate space and facilities in the Parliamentary Press as long as the House required it. There is no guarantee of that beyond the first transfer of ownership. Madam Speaker's letter on behalf of the Commission sought an assurance of continuity in the staffing and management of HMSO, bearing in mind its experience and expertise, and called for adequate training for any new staff. No such binding undertaking has been given by the Minister tonight, because, as he knows, no private owner would ever agree to be bound by such a limitless commitment.
The Commission wanted the Government to stipulate that there should be consultation before any changes were proposed in management or organisation. No private owner would be constrained in that way, and the Minister knows it. The Commission demanded that an individual in a privatised HMSO be personally responsible and directly accountable--an important word in this context--to the House if any aspect of the service provided went wrong. The Minister cannot deliver that, and has not pretended to do so. He speaks of legally binding contracts, but we know that such contracts can take an eternity to invoke
and a fortune to enforce. His only recourse is to threaten cancellation of the contract. Such a right to termination has little meaning when the consequence would be unmitigated chaos in the supply of Parliament's papers.
The Commission went on to insist that the existing standards negotiated in the new supply and service agreement with HMSO should be maintained and that no attempts should be made to water them down without the agreement of the House authorities, but, as everyone knows, it will be nigh impossible to spot the slimming down, short cuts and cutting of corners--the considerations of cost and profit that privatisation will inevitably demand. Even if they are spotted in time, the House will have no real leverage to ensure that the dilution is stopped or reversed.
"I cannot dictate Parliament's wish or conclusions on the matter, and therefore it cannot proceed unless Parliament is satisfied."--[Official Report, 18 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 1294.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |