Barking Hospital (Hansard, 10 July 1984)

§ 2. Mr. Dobson
asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the industrial dispute at Barking hospital.

§ 3. Ms. Richardson
asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the dispute involving women domestic staff at Barking hospital.

§ The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke)
The domestic services at Barking hospital are contracted out to a private company and have been for a number of years. The terms and conditions of service for these employees, which is what the current dispute is about, are entirely a matter for the contractor and its employees. I do, however, deplore the gross intimidation of staff that has taken place on the picket line at the hospital.

§ Mr. Dobson
If the Minister is saying that there is nothing that he or the health authority can do to resolve a dispute that is damaging patient care in Barking, does he acknowledge that an automatic result of privatisation is that neither the Government nor the authority can interfere in a dispute between a private contractor and that contractor's employees?

§ Mr. Clarke
I do not accept that any damage is being done to patient care in Barking, although clearly things are not well there. However, any damage must be the result of the industrial action taken by those on strike and those manning the picket line outside the hospital. All that the health authority has done is to make a saving of £143,000 per year on cleaning costs, which is now being spent on improved nurse staffing levels in other parts of the service.

§ Ms. Richardson
Does the Minister appreciate that the reduction of more than 800 hours per week has led to a reduction in the standard of cleanliness in the hospital, that the health authority admitted that fact in a letter to me, and that the council's local environmental health committee complained last week about more than 30 items which were not clean? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now say whether he is satisfied with the standard of cleanliness; and, if not, will he intervene to try to get negotiations going?

§ Mr. Clarke
The savings have been made by the private contractor cutting back on the work schedules, rostering and overmanning on the previous contract, resulting in a saving to the authority which can be spent on improving patient care. of course, cleanliness leave much to be desired at present. Some of the faults relate to work for which Crothall is responsible and others to work for which the authority is responsible. But it is hypocritical to complain about standards of cleanliness when it is the actions of the pickets, whom the hon. Lady supports, that make it impossible to take the remedial measures which the authority and the contractor wish to take.

§ Mr. Alan Howarth
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the interests of patients, not trade unions, should be paramount in the Health Service, and that competitive tendering for ancillary services could do much to ensure that resources go to patient care rather than being wasted on non-cost-effective services? Will he also note the anxiety of some Conservative Members that his deadline for requiring tendering for services contracted out seems to have slipped to September 1986?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. That is getting a little wide of a question on Barking hospital.

§ Mr. Clarke
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
On the first part of the question, I entirely accept my hon. Friend's comments. It is not in the interests of the Labour party to campaign for cleaning costs to be kept up to the level that NUPE would prefer, as it clearly diverts money to cleaning and away from patient care. The benefits of tendering could certainly be spread to other authorities. We are looking at the time scale and hope to make progress as rapidly as possible.

§ Mr. Meadowcroft
Is it not morally wrong for the Government to acquiesce in the development of a local private monopoly which can unilaterally reduce the take-home pay of low-paid workers?

§ Mr. Clarke
I do not see how the contracting firm can be described as a local private monopoly when the contract is the result of a tendering exercise. The contractor in question had held the contract for 12 years without any industrial action being taken, so far as I know; but, when the contract was put out for retendering, it was discovered that substantial savings could be made. The money saved is now being spent by the authority in desirable ways on the care of its patients.