HC Deb 18 January 1977 vol 924 cc275-88

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House does agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) in their First Report.—[Mr. Robert Cooke.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine)

The Question is the third motion.

Hon. Members

Aye.

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Division.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

On a point of order—

Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)

The Division has been called.

Mr. Spearing

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do I understand that the motion was moved formally and that hon. Members who stood to speak to it did not catch your eye?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I did not notice any hon. Members rising to speak, if, in fact, there were any such Members.

Mr. Spearing

Further to that point of order. I certainly rose to speak.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I call the hon. Gentleman.

1.24 a.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hour is late, but I wish to speak to the motion, although it was moved formally.

The report relating to the printing of Hansard and its page size merits some discussion, and I am surprised that hon. Members wished not to discuss it.

The previous debate showed that the printing of public papers was a very important matter, not only for the House but for democracy. The Select Committee's proposal that we should change not only the page size of Hansard but the size of print and the number of words in each column was something of a surprise to hon. Members. Hansard is not only produced for the convenience of hon. Members but is widely used inside the organs of government, by outside bodies, official and others, and by the general public.

To date, Hansard has been generally recognised as one of the miracles of printing. We owe a debt to those who produce it generally so efficiently and quickly. It is most convenient in its present form, being easy to handle and having columns which are sufficiently short and narrow for one to be able easily to see the word or reference that one wishes to pick out. Reference by column number is therefore to a relatively small number of words.

The proposal and the specimen produced for our inspection do not fall within those canons of convenience. The specimen is not so convenient to handle or for reference, and it is not so easily digestible when reading.

I am also surprised that the Committee has not reprinted the Stationery Office memorandum. After the reference to the Principal Clerk, Table Office, and Editor of the Official Report there is an asterisk, meaning "Not Reported". This merits comment. If the Committee is not prepared to publish the full Stationery Office report, presumably on the reasons why it is making its proposals, the House should not accept it.

My second point is that the money saved does not amount to a great deal. According to the report, it is £180,000 of capital cost. The cost of Hansard over a year, let alone of the House, is massive by comparison. We have not had the opportunity of reading the memorandum which sets out the savings in full.

I should not be so worried if we had the Vote on the larger paper, but it would he inconvenient to have the reports of Committees, such as that with which we are dealing, in the larger size. However, I would prefer them to be printed on larger paper, and perhaps save some money in that way, and have Hansard the same size.

Dr. Alan Glyn (Windsor and Maidenhead)

The hon. Gentleman said that the proportionate saving would be very small. He owes it to the House to say what proportion it would be, because that is what we are debating.

Mr. Spearing

That is a fair point, but the £180,000 is a saving on capital cost and not recurring cost. I do not know the annual cost of Hansard. We may be told by whoever winds up the debate.

I oppose the motion and hope that it will be withdrawn. If it is not, I hope that it will be defeated on a vote, because the present size of Hansard is convenient for the House, the public and perhaps even the Post Office in getting it to the public, who will want more copies of Hansard when radio comes to the House. We should be concentrating on the convenience of the people who read the Official Report rather than on a relatively small saving in methods of production.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. David Crouch (Canterbury)

I know that it is late and that the Minister rushed to the Dispatch Box to speak, but this is an important matter and we should not be rushed.

I wish to complain most strongly at the absence of the Leader of the House when we are discussing such an important matter. The shape and size of our Parliamentary Official Report is to be changed on the recommendation of a Committee. I am suggesting not that the Committee is not empowered to make studies and recommendations but that the right hon. Gentleman should be present to tell the House why he thinks that the new format is a better size—if it is a better size—and to say whether those engaged in professional book production regard it as a better size. Furthermore, if the right hon. Gentleman regards the new size as less suitable, he should be here so to advise the House.

We are to be given our Official Report in an entirely different format.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

It is a paperback.

Mr. Crouch

It is not a paperback, but it is very nearly the size of the Daily Mirror. It is certainly not something I can read in bed at night.

I gather that if the House accepts this proposal, it will be for an experimental period.

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Michael English (Nottingham. West)

Will the hon. Gentleman explain how the beautiful ranks of Hansards in the British Museum can be kept in the same shelves if they are to be of a different size, and if it is to be for an experimental period only?

Mr. Crouch

I have been corrected and told that it is not for an experimental period. That makes this an even more serious matter. It is a fundamentally important change. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) points to the difficulties that will be experienced in the British Museum and other libraries.

I would point to the fact that some hon. Members have been provided with new furniture at a cost that would make this saving of £182,000 look quite silly. The cost of furniture in my new office must be enormous—not far short of £100,000. I have facilities for storing my blue-bound copies of Hansard and they make a very good background when I am televised in my office. I keep them in date order. It is possible to alter the shelves to take a much longer book, but if this proposal goes through I shall need another shelf within a very short time.

Mr. Neil Marten (Banbury)

It is all very well for my hon. Friend to talk about the lush conditions in which he works in Norman Shaw Building. He must think of other hon. Members who have to keep their copies of Hansard in their penthouse flats and who have to buy their own shelves. What about letter boxes? We shall have to have new letter boxes to accommodate the new size Hansard. Can the Minister say whether there will be grants for new bookshelves and letter boxes?

Mr. Crouch

This is an important point about letter boxes. I do not want to be facetious, but it is now 1.30 a.m., I shall shortly be going to bed and I shall not get up tomorrow until after the postman has come to my London flat. At present, Hansard comes through the letter box. But it will be disadvantageous if hon. Members have to get up at 8 a.m., after late night sittings, in order to collect their copies of Hansard.

The proposed size and format are not right for convenient reading. It is not the way in which Dickens would be printed but the way in which Shakespeare would be printed for a play reading. But Hansard is not play reading. Reading Hansard is a serious business.

The Select Committee must withdraw this proposal, go away and think again and not trifle us with ideas for saving £182,000. We are used to trying to save money even when we build a car park here, but then we are talking about millions of pounds. In this case there would be a trivial saving as a result of taking a step in the wrong direction.

1.36 a.m.

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Charles R. Morris)

I have been hesitant to intervene in the debate so far, but I welcome the opportunity of responding to the invitation extended by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke). This has provided me with an opportunity of speaking on a motion relating to the First Report of the current Session of the Services Committee following its consideration of a paper submitted to it by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. I have some responsibility for this and I am answerable to the House for Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Perhaps I could endorse the tribute that has been paid to the increased work and productivity achieved by the staff of the printing works and of the Stationery Office in seeking to provide our printing needs.

Mr. English

I accept what the Minister has said, but would he also explain why it is that since the management of the Stationery Office united the Parliamentary Press with other branches of the Government press, this House has been worse served? Does the Minister agree that that decision was wrong and should be reversed, and that the House would be better served if it had its own printing press?

Mr. Morris

I do not accept my hon. Friend's contention. The House has its own parliamentary press.

It is essential for the House to decide whether it wishes to proceed along the lines indicated by the motion. Perhaps it would be helpful if I explained some of the detailed background to the proposal. I take the opportunity of expressing my gratitude to the Services Committee for undertaking such careful consideration of the proposals put to it.

Since St. Stephen's Parliamentary Press reached its planned capacity in 1964, parliamentary needs have grown from 65,000 pages to 133,000 pages a year—an increase of more than 100 per cent—and are expected to increase to 150,000 pages a year by 1981, a further increase of 13 per cent.

The current overnight requirement at peak times in a Session is equivalent in typesetting terms to three national daily newspapers. The principal parliamentary printing requirements comprise 14 different items and total 120,000 pages a year.

To cope with the increased growth, HMSO has added extra staff and machines where accommodation has allowed, achieved increased output from operatives as a result of more intensive working, examined and amended priorities to smooth the flow of major tasks, extensively used additional overtime and steadily and increasingly off-loaded suitable parts of its work to private printers.

Mr. Jim Craigen (Glasgow, Maryhill)

Does the anticipated increase in volume cover just Hansard papers or all governmental reports? We spent most of today debating devolution, yet we have a printing press in Edinburgh and I wonder whether it could be given additional work in order to relieve the pressure on the London presses.

Mr. Morris

I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. The St. Stephen's Press, to which the report refers, is concerned with the production of Hansard. The Edinburgh press is used for a variety of printing jobs but not for the production of the Official Report. I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said about off-loading suitable work to the Stationery Office press at Edinburgh.

Dr. Glyn

Let us forget the strikes at the printing works and concentrate on the recommendation that the size of Hansard should be increased. This will affect the daily, weekly and bound volumes of the Official Report. I do not believe that it is worth changing the size of all these volumes—thereby increasing the space taken on hon. Member's bookshelves—for a saving of £182,000.

Mr. Morris

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the report will have an impact on the size of the daily, weekly and bound copies of Hansard, but I cannot accept his contention that a saving of £182,000 is a trifle.

Mr. Dudley Smith (Warwick and Leamington)

If, as I forecast, the new format proves to be desperately unpopular, shall we find that the change is irrevocable?

Mr. Morris

If I may continue, I shall indicate the justifications for the change in the page size of Hansard and the hon. Gentleman will be able to decide for himself whether it will be irrevocable.

I was indicating the strain under which the HMSO operates, and the main symptom of that strain has been the late delivery of essential parliamentary papers.

The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) is right to express concern about the inconvenience to Members and those who monitor our proceedings outside that any change in our printing procedures will cause, but he should bear in mind that currently those who monitor our proceedings outside and Members have already been subjected to appreciable inconvenience.

Mr. Spearing

I am glad that my hon. Friend is now able to address the House, something that he did not originally choose to do. Those of us who are unhappy about this change are not against the re-equipping of the press, against photo-type setting or against even more people being employed. What we are against is the size. Perhaps my hon. Friend will address himself to that point.

Mr. Morris

If my hon. Friend and Members generally allow me to continue with my speech, perhaps I shall be able to illuminate their thoughts. Perhaps it is being immodest to suggest that I can achieve that desirable end.

I did not choose to address the House. This is essentially a House of Commons matter. It was not a question of my choosing to address—

Mr. English

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has just announced that he did not choose to address the House on this subject

Mr. Morris

I hope that I can continue to make my speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps my hon. Friends and Members generally will try to follow the arguments that I am endeavouring to put.

I was referring to the main symptom of the stress upon the St. Stephen's Parliamentary Press in recent months. It has manifested itself in the late delivery of essential parliamentary papers—for example, in the past parliamentary Session over half the early deliveries of the Vote bundle were not made to schedule. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will not be surprised to know that statistics show that there is a close relationship between the volume of printing and the occasions of late delivery.

I have already said that the present press is working to the limits of its capacity. Overtime working has reached the realms of counter-productivity during peak times of sessional activity. The long-term solution to the problem clearly lies in rehousing the press in accommodation in which it would be possible to install modern processes. The Stationery Office is actively pursuing such a course but it will take at least two or three years to implement the new techniques after the decision to proceed has been authorised.

The proposal to change the page size of the Official Report follows the acceptance of a standard of paper sizes by the paper making trade in this country some 20 years ago and the gradual adoption of the standard by the printing machine manufacturers. The size that is proposed for the Official Report is known, as many Members realise, as A4. Most hon. Members will be familiar with it in its everyday life. It measures 11¾ in. by 8¾ in. That is about two inches larger in each dimension than the current size of the Official Report.

The proposed page size would have a number of advantages over the current size. The first advantage is that there would be a substantial reduction in the number of pages to be printed, which is important. That is something that those who were talking about the size of weekly and bound editions of Hansard might bear in mind.

Dr. Glyn

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has been very reasonable with regard to my first point. Surely, if this whole procedure has to be altered, it means changing the size of the printing press. That means an enormous amount of capital expenditure, and that has not been taken into consideration in the £182,000 saving. How much, in fact, are we saving in capital costs and the yearly running of Hansard?

Mr. Morris

Perhaps I can put it simply to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right when he says that the changing of the size will involve appreciable expenditure. That is the whole basis of the Services Committee Report.

We are going to create a new Parliamentary Press which will require new machines. Basically the Services Committee is inviting the House to consider—

Mr. English

Why are we getting rid of the old ones?

Mr. Morris

We are getting rid of the old ones because they are 30 years old. The St. Stephen's Press reached its capacity in 1964.

If we are to build a new Parliamentary Press, and if we were to purchase new machines that provided for printing a multiplicity of different page sizes, then the cost involved would be appreciably higher. This is where we come to the £182,000.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Morris

I have only a few more arguments to put and the House can then proceed to debate the issue.

Clearly the use of this size would reduce the time ultimately spent on setting up presses and finishing equipment for variations in paper and page sizes. That would lead to financial savings. Further savings would derive from the fact that paper stocks would be, and could be, reduced.

Furthermore, the capital costs of plant designed for standard A4 pages are substantially less than for those machines able to cope with a variety of sizes. The capital saving on the plant for the Official Report would, as I have indicated, be £182,000—about 20 per cent. of the total equipment cost.

Even greater savings would be achieved by printing the Vote bundle on the A4 size. I hope the House will agree that, particularly in current economic circumstances, proposals involving such potential savings in public expenditure merit very careful consideration.

Frankly, I know of no hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, and very few on my hon. Friends, who have not exhorted the nation generally to have regard for the need for economies in public expenditure. The House tonight has the opportunity of practising what it preaches.

Moreover, the larger page sizes would allow more flexibility and variations in format. The Services Committee believes that the present layout and style commend themselves for their clarity and ease of reading and that the House finds them generally acceptable. On the new size, the format could readily be altered in response to the wishes of the House.

Before I close I should say a few words about the new presses and the time scale. I have already said that in the longer term the solution to the problems of parliamentary printing lies in the Stationery Office's plan to construct a new press. This would be equipped to produce the Official Report, utilising modern methods of computer-assisted composition, web-offset lithography, and other developments.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York)

Do I understand from what my hon. Friend has said that we are going to embark on a programme of capital expenditure on new presses, which will, in a fairly short time, be overtaken by a completely new form of printing with offset litho or whatever system is devised? Surely that means that the savings will be for a limited number of years? Why do we not keep on with the old presses until we come to the offset litho?

Mr. Morris

My hon. Friend has misunderstood the point. The situation is that the present presses at St. Stephen's Parliamentary Press are about 30 years old, and have reached the limit of their capacity. I have already indicated the manifestations of the strain in terms of printing capacity. We now propose to have new presses, in a new location. These will incorporate the new technology of printing, in order to take advantage of that technology. We are now in a position of working out tenders for the new machinery needed for the new plant. It would be advantageous if the Stationery Office could have a decision on the page size of the Official Report.

Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham)

We have before us a grossly inadequate report. The Minister has referred, time and time again, to a saving of £182,000. Could he tell us the facts and figures of the total expenditure? This could be a very marginal amount in relation to the overall capital expenditure involved in this project.

Mr. Morris

As I indicated in the course of my speech, it is about 20 per cent. of the total capital expenditure. My mathematics is not such that I can work that out at 2 o'clock in the morning.

Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex)

On the point of public expenditure savings, all of us have pressed for such savings. The report says that the saving in the cost of installation of this machinery will be about £182,000. Has the Minister made any estimate of the additional capital cost in the House of Commons Library and other libraries up and down the country of altering shelves, files and filing systems for taking parliamentary papers printed in the new size? I have a suspicion that there will be very much greater expenditure.

Mr. Morris

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I think that there will be a degree of inconvenience, and perhaps limited expenditure incurred in altering shelves and so on. But I ask the House to consider seriously the savings, because this is crucial. With the help of my officials, I am able to tell the House that the overall expenditure is £850,000. That does not take account of the expenditure involved in acquiring a new site.

Mr. English

My hon. Friend does not realise that every hon. Member is sympathetic to him. Not one of the persons responsible for the situation he is in is in the Box behind him. I do not wish to name names. There is an ugly man with spectacles who once said that two presses should be united. His theory was that if presses used to producing Government publications and presses used to producing parliamentary publications were united, the lowest common denominator in wages would be adopted and public expenditure would be saved. When the presses got together they naturally adopted the highest common factor. There are simple—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Is the hon. Gentleman making an intervention or attempting to catch my eye?

Mr. English

I was attempting to make an intervention. We have to get to the truth. At one time printers who worked for Her Majesty's Government worked for newspapers during August when their printers were on holiday—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. If the hon. Gentleman has a contribution to make it should not be made in the middle of another hon. Member's speech.

Mr. English

With the greatest respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it would shorten my speech if I made my intervention now. My hon. Friend the Minister and the whole House have been misled. My hon. Friend has been led into this situation by circumstances which have been caused by people who have not clearly advised him what those circumstances are.

Mr. Morris

I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said. The one encouraging feature of his comments is that his criticisms of the proposal are not directed to me personally.

The Stationery Office has in mind possible delay to the timetable—

Mr. Peter Emery (Honiton)

The Minister rightly said that we must consider the savings. He quoted a saving of £182,000 on the capital cost. Has the Committee considered the major increase in binding costs which will arise because of the considerably larger book, and the extra cost of the hardboard or leather? I am advised that the binding cost is likely to be up by one-third. Will the Minister give the House information about that, because the saving to which he refers might be lost in the increased binding costs?

Mr. Morris

I shall endeavour to ensure that when he replies to the debate the Chairman of the Committee answers that point.

The possible delays envisaged by the Stationery Office will only exacerbate the difficulties of maintaining an acceptable service to Parliament. Tenders for the supply of new machinery will need to be sought in the early part of this year to enable the new equipment to be run in during the long recess in 1978. Before tenders can be requested, a decision on the page size of the Official Report is needed. If the potential savings are not to be delayed or put at risk, the Stationery Office needs to know the wishes of

Division No. 36.] AYES [2.06 a.m.
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Jones, Dan (Burnley) Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Banks, Robert Loyden, Eddle Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Bottomley, Peter Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson Urwin, T. W.
Canavan, Dennis McCartney, Hugh Weatherill, Bernard.
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol) Mahon, Simon Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Woof, Robert
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill) Newton, Tony
Evans, John (Newton) Noble, Mike TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. Parry, Robert Mr. Alfred Bates and
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) Sims, Roger Mr. Walter Harrison.
John, Brynmor Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
NOES
Skinner, Dennis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. Nigel Spearing and
Mr. Nicholas Winterton.
It appearing on the report of the Division that forty Members were not present, Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided, and the business under consideration stood over until the next Sitting of the House.

the House as soon as possible. As I have said, at some future date I hope that hon. Members will be invited to make a similar decision with regard to Vote papers.

The price that the House is being asked to pay to achieve impressive savings and an improvement in service is little more than the loss of a familiar face. Some may claim the loss of the ability to slip the Official Report into their coat pocket. That is true. But I think that most of us, whose pockets refuse to take the present size unfolded, will find that the new version, with its fewer pages and broader leaf, folds more readily and thus may be pocketed more easily. I commend the Services Committee's proposals to the House.

2.6 a.m.

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Woolwich, West)

The new format seems sensible. It requires us to expand the space between our bookshelves by three-thirteenths. The extra 50 per cent. across the upper line will take up one-third less space going laterally. On these grounds, the proposal is worth supporting.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 28, Noes 1.