| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does he understand that if he gives away the right to enhanced co-operation to France and Germany and the other leading continental powers, Britain loses her main opportunity to get something that we want in perpetuity? What will he demand in return for giving away that massive power?
Mr. Vaz: Let me reassure the right hon. Gentleman, who is very passionate about this issue and speaks in all these debates. When our negotiators are out there, fighting for Britain, we will not give things away without ensuring that we get the best possible deal. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman did the same on the few occasions when he went to European Council meetings as Secretary of State and as a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry. When he went there, he wanted to make sure that he got the best possible deal. That is exactly what the Prime Minister and other Ministers do.
It is interesting that the right hon. Gentleman mentions enhanced co-operation. The right hon. Member for Horsham, so eager to issue his press releases before he realises what decisions have been taken--I am sure that when we arrive at Nice, we will find the "Francis Maude press releases", condemning everything that the Government have done--will know that a year ago he was calling for more flexibility.
We have said that we will accept enhanced co-operation provided that it does not create a two-speed Europe, exactly as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said. We will not accept it if it creates a situation in which some applicants are not moving as fast as we are. We will not create a two-speed Europe; we want to ensure that the single market is not undermined.
Mr. Cash: What about the emergency brake?
Mr. Vaz: That will remain our position on the emergency brake, the veto and all other issues. The Government are positively engaged in Europe. We have to be right there at the centre, making those decisions and at Nice, we will make sure that our agenda is accepted.
Mr. Tony McNulty (Harrow, East): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
PETITION
Second-hand Goods
7 pm
Mr. Derek Wyatt (Sittingbourne and Sheppey): The petition states:
- To the House of Commons
The petition of the residents of the county of Kent and of Medway
Declares that legislation aimed at regulating the sale of second hand goods should be created in a national scheme and preceded by full and proper consultation of all those likely to be affected.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons reject the Kent County Council Bill [Lords] and the Medway Council Bill [Lords].
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
Abuse Investigations (NHS)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Jamieson.]
7 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East): As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is not my habit to seek Adjournment debates, but I have come to the conclusion that this is the only way to put on record my disappointment, concern and anger at the manner in which a complaint about alleged serious malpractice in the health service has been dealt with. If it is in any way typical, it is not in the interests of public services or of the people; it is also an insult to parliamentary democracy and the safeguards that are meant to stem from it.
In my constituency, there is a successful and distinguished firm called Rebus--a provider of IT services. Among the applications that they offer is Medirisk, a risk management software tool, which is used in the NHS. Rebus is obviously competitive, and during the summer of 1999 it was most concerned to hear that a person--whose name I have provided to the Minister of State, Department of Health--had secured a position as controls assurance project manager within the NHS executive, although he was a director of a firm producing an application that was a direct competitor to Medirisk. Rebus was even more concerned to learn not only that he was a director, but that he actually owned a third of the share capital.
That worry and concern became alarm, however, when it was reported to Rebus that the person to whom I have referred was actually promoting the sales of his company's products and that he had allegedly given some officials the message that his firm's products were the only ones that should be purchased.
Rebus also received a report from a lady whose initials are KM--I have passed her name to the Minister--who is a respected clinical risk adviser and also a local councillor in Northampton. She stated that, at a conference held at the Good Hope hospital NHS trust, the project manager had described his project as the preferred choice of the NHS. As she was so concerned about the situation, she took the trouble to contact Rebus with that information.
Rebus obviously felt that something was seriously wrong and so made a complaint to the director of finance and performance of the NHS. He took more than a month to reply, but when he did so, he indicated that Rebus had obviously misunderstood the situation. He explained that in fact two products were produced by the firm. One, which had been financed by the NHS, was concerned with modules for auditing compliance with health and safety legislation, but it had the same name as the risk management product. He said that clearly the manager had been referring to one rather than the other. Of course, letters can be misquoted, but I have all the correspondence and I shall be glad to show it to the Minister so that he can read it himself. I hope that he will study it.
The basic point, however, was that although there had been an indication that someone had heard and seen an alleged abuse, no one asked to see the lady who had made the complaint--to make contact with her to obtain further information. The answer was simply that it was a load of rubbish.
After that delayed letter, Rebus started receiving other reports of alleged abuses. For example, a hospital in Liverpool had apparently been instructed by the regional office of the NHS executive to purchase a product to which I will simply refer as product S. Another report related to a potential client within the health service who had phoned the project manager--the chap who held the shares--to ask his advice on the purchase of a risk management system. The answer--which was noted carefully, word for word--was that there was no way the NHS executive would continue with any product other than S, given the amount of money that had been invested in it.
Rebus's view was certainly that the possible purchasers in the NHS had gained the impression that product S was the preferred choice of the NHS, because of which Rebus found that, although several hundred people were interested in buying the systems, only five got them. The rest were worried, concerned and confused. Never in the firm's history had it received so many inquiries but so few purchases.
Reports of apparent abuse continued to be received, so the firm decided to approach its local Member of Parliament. This is the point that I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will consider. I was rather horrified by the reports, so when the firm sent me a formal letter, dated 1 February, I wrote to the Secretary of State on 3 February. As the points at issue were so clear and precise, and as I had provided in the correspondence the name of one of the people who had heard the abuses, I presumed that they would be dealt with speedily.
Although the letter was sent on 3 February, two months passed and I heard nothing. I phoned the Minister's office to ask what was happening. Nothing happened, so I sent a reminder letter, dated 1 June, to the Secretary of State, but still I received no reply. I genuinely did not know how to motivate the Minister to take the issue seriously, so I tabled a parliamentary question, marked W--a procedure that was designed to stop Ministers delaying answers.
The Minister will be well aware that I tabled the question for answer on 28 June--quite a long time ago--so it should have been replied to on that date. I simply asked the Secretary of State when he would reply to my letter about the serious alleged abuses in the health service, but no reply came. I received no reply the following week; nor the following month. You may be surprised to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have not yet received a reply. I inquired by phone again today, and the Table Office confirmed that there is still no reply.
The whole business began to make me suspicious. Was it simply a case of an arrogant Minister who did not care about serious allegations relating to the health service, or did he not want his name to be associated with what was happening? I made inquiries about the S company. It emerged that it was not really a giant, but a small company. In 1998, there had been a loss of £4,000 on a very limited turnover and, in 1999, a profit of £73.
I will not make public my suspicions, but I think that the Minister will know what I am talking about. Whatever the circumstances, I knew that the whole episode was an insult to democracy. As I had tried tabling questions, speaking to the Ministers and sending letters, I decided that the only thing to do was to write to the Prime Minister and to Madam Speaker. On 23 August, I sent a long letter to the Prime Minister and another to Madam Speaker.
The Prime Minister's assistant, Jan Taylor, who is obviously a polite lady, wrote back to me on 29 August. On behalf of the Prime Minister, she said:
- I will ensure that a reply is sent to you as soon as possible.
The Minister will be aware that Mr. Reeves said that the witness to whom I referred was not relevant and misunderstood the situation. The Minister answered that the witness had not been there, or that no one could remember whether she was there. No one could recall having seen her, although the hospital invited her to go along and although she has been recognised by many people who were there. I have a list of people who had met her there, but the Minister said that she was not there, so there was no point in pursuing the case. He also said that he was sure that Mr. E had not abused his position.
I responded immediately to the Minister with a letter saying that KM had been present at the invitation of the risk manager at the hospital, and I gave the Minister a detailed description of the most recent case of abuse, which was much worse than the others. Of course Rebus was angry, and it sent its own letter. We do not have replies yet, and we may have to wait for another nine months or a year.
I am grateful to have the opportunity to put these events on record and all the points that I have made can be confirmed by documents, letters and statements. I now wish to ask the Minister five simple questions. First, does he consider that Ministers and officials have dealt with the complaints adequately? Is the case not an affront to the democratic system?
Secondly, does the Minister think it right to arrange for an official in his Department to speak to the many witnesses who are willing to spell out clearly what they regard as a very serious abuse? I can give him the names and the telephone numbers of those who are prepared to do that.
Thirdly, in light of the issues that have been raised, is it not important that the Minister should say on behalf of the NHS that, subject only to the wishes of their patients and communities, hospitals are entirely free to purchase whatever risk management equipment they wish? If he says that they are free to do that and are not guided by what is regarded as the favourite of the NHS, that will make a difference.
Fourthly, does it not genuinely worry the Minister, as a democrat, that when the controls assurance project was launched in November 1999 at the London Arena, only one company--the S company--had an exhibition stand even though the NHS executive was well aware of the conflict of interest? Was that right?
Finally, will the Minister consider the many complaints of abuse that have been made? To give just one more example of an information leak, it is a fact that, when the S company advertised at the London Arena, a version of
its product had been built to contain all the controls assurance standards. Those standards were not released to NHS managers until after the event. Will he try to find out how this miraculous firm was able to produce something with all the specific standards that had not even been published, and was able to have the product on display at a public exhibition? Access to privileged information is valuable, so if this is not an important issue, what is?The issues that I have raised are serious. I have not tried to discuss them from a political perspective; I simply say that what happened was wrong. Something should happen and someone should do something. If nothing is done, that will be an insult to democracy, fairness and to all the things that the Minister and I embarked on when we came into politics. I hope that he will think about the issues and reassure us.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |