HC Deb 31 January 1990 vol 166 cc294-5
2. Mr. Norman Hogg

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had regarding competitive tendering in the National Health Service in Scotland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth)

Health boards have reported savings of £66 million, which have been used to recruit additional medical staff and improve facilities for the young, the elderly, the disabled and the mentally handicapped.

Mr. Hogg

The Minister's answer is consistent with previous answers. Is he aware that, of the contracts that have been awarded in the Greater Glasgow health board area, three companies—Initial Health Services, Mediguard and Hospital Hygiene Services—figure very strongly? Is the Minister further aware that those companies have a dubious record and have either withdrawn from or been sacked in Bradford, West Leeds, Northampton, Merton and Sutton, North Warwickshire, Norwich, Nottingham, Pontefract, South Tees, York, East Birmingham, Manchester, Bromley, Canterbury, Gateshead and Oxfordshire? Why must we put up with the same in the Greater Glasgow health board? How much money must be spent on redundancy payments for real Health Service staff who have lost their jobs because of those private companies?

Mr. Forsyth

In March last year, the saving available to improve patient care for the Health Service in Scotland as a result of competitive tendering was £5.5 million. The figure today is £66 million. The hon. Gentleman asked about redundancy payments. To date these amount to £5.2 million, compared with £66 million. Substantial additional resources are available for patient care.

The hon. Gentleman complains about particular companies. Three quarters of both the contracts and the savings have been obtained, not by private contractors, but the in-house work force carrying out the same task in a different way. He also complained about the quality of services. I am sure that he will have seen the parliamentary answer that I gave the other day. An independent survey of standards of provision where private contractors have been brought in showed that the standards were at least as good as, if not better than, those achieved by the in-house work force.

Mr. Allan Stewart

Does my hon. Friend agree that if Opposition Members were successful in campaigning against competitive tendering they would deprive patients of substantial additional resources for patient care? Will he confirm that every health board in Scotland has made savings and that in Greater Glasgow many extra staff have been made available? For example, is he aware that 74 extra staff for mental illness and handicap have been employed as a direct result of those savings?

Mr. Forsyth

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Incidentally, I congratulate him on sporting the blue rose of Eastwood. He is right to draw attention to the substantial improvements in staffing and facilities in Greater Glasgow as a result of the competitive tendering programme. The public are entitled to ask why Opposition Members do everything possible to frustrate the Greater Glasgow health board in pursuing a policy that produces real, tangible and substantial benefits for patients, particularly those with mental handicap or illness.

Mr. Dewar

Is it not sad that staff of the health boards who have spent years in the service of the NHS have to give up hard-earned terms and conditions in order to save their jobs? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the imposition of competitive tendering in areas that touch the core of the Health Service—such as diagnostic services, laboratories and radiography—is damaging? Does not the Minister realise that there is no public support for policies that threaten to turn those services into opportunities for private profit? In view of the contrived changes in the rules on VAT and redundancy, is he satisfied that competition has not been rigged?

Mr. Forsyth

The hon. Gentleman makes several points. His first was about people giving up hard-earned terms and conditions. For contracts that have been won in-house—that is the majority; three quarters—the terms and conditions remain the same. They are Whitley terms and conditions. However, restrictive practices and the business of paying double time when it is not necessary have ended. That is how savings have been made. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to complain about the way in which savings have been made, he should address his remarks to the trade union officials who co-operated in the process in the interests of the Health Service and of obtaining the best deal for the patients.

The hon. Gentleman wrote about rigging to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, who answered his question fully. I am surprised that he has raised the matter again. VAT is payable only where the cost of the outside contractor, inclusive of VAT, is less than the cost of the in-house service.

Mr. Speaker

We are making slow progress this afternoon. Briefer supplementary questions may receive briefer answers.