§ Mr. Hicksasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will outline the sequence of events that has taken place about the future provision of laundry facilities for the Cornwall district health authority, with specific reference to his Department's role in these negotiations.
§ Mr. Kenneth ClarkeThe main events involving Ministers and our Department have been
6 June 1980. — South Western RHA asked by the Department to conduct an investment appraisal of the proposal to build a new NHS laundry at Pool, Cornwall. The AHA had already discounted as less suitable or impractical a number of other in-house options such as the up-grading of the obsolete laundry at Tehidy hospital.15 February 1983. —Report on the investment appraisal submitted to Ministers. This appraisal showed clear financial savings to the authority from placing the contract with the most competitive contractors—Kneels Ltd. —rather than the preferred in-house solution.2 September 1983. — South Western RHA told that Ministers had decided that, in keeping with the results of the appraisal, a new laundry should not be built but a contract placed with the firm which submitted the lowest tender.8 September 1983. —Government issue their circular on competitive tendering.3 October 1983. —Ministers asked by the RHA to allow a late in-house tender.8 December 1983. — We replied that the original decision should stand. To accede to the RHA's request would involve an unjustified fresh tendering exercise which would cause needless delay and be unfair to the company which had tendered in good faith in the first round.414W18 January 1984. —Letter from South Western RHA conveying additional information about laundry services in Cornwall.15 February 1984. —Letter from Department, urging no further delay in letting contract in accordance with results of the investment appraisal.23 February 1984. —Further letter from RHA proposing postponement of award of contract.28 February 1984. —Telephone call from Department—contract should be placed in accordance with previous decision.29 February 1984. —Contract placed.Our role throughout has been to ensure that, in the interests of patients, the best value for money should be obtained in the provision of this particular service. The origins of the project go back many years and, together with my decision on it, clearly pre-date the issue by our Department of the circular on competitive tendering which has laid down a suggested new tendering process for future cases.
I am quite sure that all parties were dealt with fairly throughout and that the best choice has been made in the interests of the service and its patients.
I have never seen the report of a working party of management and trades union representatives which has been widely reported recently as claiming that other in-house options would have been cheaper. It appears to be going back to an option rejected long ago as impractical. many of the figures that I have seen quoted from the report appear to have no relevance to this contract. It was drawn up far too late to influence a decision taken on a fair tendering process. I understand that it does not represent the views of the district health authority.