| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9.20 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): Many hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall ask the Minister just two questions. First, a factual question. With whom has he discussed the matter in relation to the staff? I am told that it was not discussed with the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union; the Graphical, Paper and Media Union; or the GMB. I am told that he had one somewhat cursory meeting with the Civil and Public Services Association; the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists; and the National Union of Civil and Public Servants, but that, other than that, there has been no contact. When the Minister replies, can we have the factual truth--or untruth--of that situation?
Secondly, I return to vetting. We are talking about some of the most sensitive documents that our country handles. Huge amounts of money could be made. Are we entirely, as the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) suggested, to rely on contract law? What will happen about the vetting of individual employees? With the Budget statement and equally sensitive documents, it is not sufficient for the firm to
give a general blanket assurance. There must be very clear track records of employees who are to handle such matters.
I should like answers to those two questions.
Mr. Gary Waller (Keighley):
Much attention has been paid today to the interests of employees of HMSO and of this House and the other place. That is quite right, but I want to say a few words about the interests of the ultimate customer--the user of official information--and the dissemination of that information using electronic means. I have no doubt that, in future, it will become common for such information to be conveyed in that way, for it to be manipulated and for added-value services to be applied to it.
The Information Committee of the House, of which I am Chairman, has already given some attention to the matter of parliamentary copyright, not specifically because the matter of privatisation has arisen but because we recognise that copyright is in many ways the key to the way in which information is used. It must be a key to open doors, not lock them. I know that some publishers are concerned that it is being used to lock doors rather than open them.
I shall speak about Crown copyright this evening, because I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is planning--early in February, I believe--to complete a review of the matter and that his views will then be published. Leading firms of legal publishers such as Butterworth, Sweet and Maxwell and Longman, and specialist electronic publishers such as Context, with whom the House has an agreement for the electronic dissemination of POLIS, are concerned about what they describe as
I have one or two questions for my hon. Friend the Minister, who is to wind up. If the privatised stationery office is required to obtain a licence to exploit Crown copyright from that part of HMSO which remains in the public sector--I assume that it will--will that licence be offered to the stationery office on the same terms as those on offer to competing private sector publishers? Will the stationery office be in a different position from others who add value to official information? What, if any, exclusive access will the stationery office have to Crown copyright materials? Will it operate in the same way as any other publisher of information in this area or will it have a special, privileged position?
I have a specific question about the statute law database project. Work has been continuing on that database for some time and I understand that the project will be completed next year. Will the stationery office have an exclusive right to offer services from that project to the public or will an open licence be available to any suitably qualified private sector publisher? I hope that all those important matters will be addressed.
Mr. Robert Litherland (Manchester, Central):
I have been connected with the print industry for 51 years. I started in the industry as a boy of 14, and I am rightly proud of the fact that I am a sponsored member of the Graphical, Paper and Media Union. My prime allegiance is to the workers who are affected by the privatisation policy.
The question that goes begging is, "Why privatisation at all?" The Minister repeatedly recognised the quality of service and the efficiency of HMSO's workers and paid tribute to the management and staff for their commercial success in recent years. Why the big hurry? Why are we discussing a deadline of the summer of 1996?
From the Minister's speech and from his statement last week, it appears that the arguments are excuse rather than good reason. It all boils down to the Government's policy of privatising public concerns however successful they may be. Their dogmatic approach is that HMSO must be privatised although, as hon. Members in all parts of the House have said, it is working and providing a good service.
A great deal of money has gone into the streamlining of this successful enterprise and I query the investment. Is it another example of the fattening-up process that takes place before every privatisation? HMSO is a free-standing organisation that has never had any history of leaks of highly sensitive details and that should be allowed to compete in the outside market and has the capability to do so--but to this Government that would be heresy.
What is dismaying--hon. Members have called for it tonight--and needs extra debate and questioning is the Minister's inability to give complete assurances on whether future private owners will sell on after purchase. He cannot give an assurance on what workers' pensions will be, whether they will be secure and whether all the terms and conditions, such as pay, holidays, health and safety, will be met. Can he give an assurance that a future owner--my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned it--could not be a foreign printer, perhaps a powerful German printer?
What about the most precious commodity of all: the workers. What will they make of the Minister's remarks? Will the proposal be to their benefit in the long run? I and, I am sure, they come to the conclusion, "Not a lot". They are not fools, Minister. They have witnessed the redundancies following the privatisation of gas, water and electricity.
The fattening up may be good for the fat cats, but it will be disastrous for many workers. What a prospect that is to offer workers just before Christmas, when they will sit with their families and ponder what next year will bring and what predicament they will be in. As has been said, the results of a ballot gave workers' views loud and clear: 95 per cent. voted against privatisation.
From the Speaker of the House down to the shop floor, concern is being expressed. The letter from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to Madam Speaker states:
As has been recognised, there is cross-party concern for HMSO's future. We wonder where privatisation will end when, now, it is on our very Parliament's doorstep.
Mr. Peter Mandelson (Hartlepool):
This debate has been useful. It has revealed the paucity of the Government's argument on the privatisation of HMSO and exposed some serious and justified concerns among not just Opposition Members but Conservative Members. It has focused attention on employees' understandable anxieties. I hope that the Minister will respond in particular to the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
9.21 pm
"the limitations that HMSO has been attempting to impose on our freedom to reproduce materials which state what the law is and how it is administered."
Few matters are as important as freedom of information in relation to the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse and it is vital that there should be no barrier to access legal information.
"I recognise, and am sympathetic to, the concerns which you raise about the service which HMSO provides to the House and how to safeguard it for the future."
I shall not give a long quotation, but it continues:
"No supplier would want to be associated with a failure to deliver the services required by such a noteworthy customer. Done well, the Parliamentary business would be the best possible advertisement for the company. Done badly, other potential customers would take flight."
To me, that reply does not reek with confidence. What would happen if the new owners could not meet their obligations? Perhaps, in his winding-up speech, the Minister will explain who would be accountable.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |