HL Deb 17 March 1987 vol 485 cc1312-4

2.47 p.m.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will intervene in the dispute at Hangers artificial limb factory in Roehampton.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington)

My Lords, the Government are not a party to this dispute, which is between the management of the company and a part of its workforce, and it is vitally important that the Government do not take sides. The dispute is a matter for negotiation between the parties involved and we have repeatedly urged that a settlement should be reached. Both sides have held talks with ACAS, which remains available to help and arrange a settlement to this dispute.

Our first concern is the interests of patients and we are taking action where necessary to alleviate disruption to the limb-fitting service.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the attention she has given to her Answer, but is she aware that this stoppage is totally unnecessary? Is she aware that it is a classic example of the disasters which can follow from the taking over of an important small firm by a large and ruthless conglomerate? Is she aware that the multiple which has taken over Hangers has no knowledge of the business and of the impact upon the limbless of a dispute which it generated among the workforce? Is she aware that the men are not on strike, for 300 of them have been dismissed out of hand as a result of their walking out in protest at the introduction of methods which they believed were harmful to the limbless as well as to themselves? In these circumstances—

Noble Lords

Order!

Lord Jenkins of Putney

Finally, my Lords—

Noble Lords

No!

Lord Jenkins of Putney

If your Lordships will permit me: finally, are the Government aware that Hangers is the chief, indeed the only, contractor in this field, and that the Government are responsible for the very existence of the firm and have a special duty to intervene?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, as a result of the McColl report, new contracting arrangements for the supply of lower limbs on the lines recommended by McColl were put to the industry in April last year. The main objectives in seeking to introduce the new arrangements are to improve standards of service to patients and to put the contracting arrangements on a more commercial and competitive footing.

Lord Campbell of Croy

My Lords, I agree with the view my noble friend has put in her reply, but do the Government consider that there has yet been any serious delay with the fitting and servicing of limbs and appliances?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, on the effect of service to the patients, this dispute is limited to the part of the workforce at Hanger's Roehampton factory. Its main effect has been felt by patients at the Roehampton centre. Patients from other centres have been generally unaffected. I am very pleased to report that the joint DHSS-Hanger working party established to clear the backlog of work has reduced the number of overdue cases at Roehampton from 420 to 209.

Lord Ennals

My Lords, regardless of the merits of the case and the concern that the noble Baroness clearly has about the fact that there are 5,000 patients who are affected at Roehampton alone, how can she put forward the argument that the Government have no responsibility? Do not the Government have responsibility on behalf of the public and of the patients for a service which is still actually a direct responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Security?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I would remind your Lordships that most people who have artificial limbs are supplied with two sets of limbs and therefore if one lot needs repair they should not be put to any inconvenience while the repair is being done. As I have said repeatedly, we will not intervene in this dispute, which is a matter for negotiation between the company and the dismissed workforce. However, we have intervened to protect patient care, and assurances have been obtained from the managing director of the company that every action is being taken to protect patient services. We continue to monitor that situation on a daily basis.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, will the noble Baroness have a word with her right honourable friend about not merely monitoring but actually intervening in this matter? Is it not the case that the men are eager to conclude the dispute on terms that are practically acceptable to the management and it is merely a question of somebody bringing them together? Is the noble Baroness aware that the management have refused intervention by ACAS altogether and that their style has changed from understanding to brutality? Is it not time that the Government intervened?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I have already explained why the Government do not wish to intervene. It is a matter for ACAS.