No slur on John Sandham or his colleagues is intended but there will always be individuals in a position to take advantage of a situation. Essentially, my view towards private contractors is that they are out there to do business and make a profit for the owner or the shareholders. In some ways private organisations do not have any option but to compete in a market that is expanding - to take advantage of opportunities as they occur.
However I cannot see how private firms can provide the savings that the NHS is looking for, that is: something for nothing it seems but this is not my concern. I think a big motivation for the NHS to award contracts for maintenance services is that it is convenient is to let contractors provide a 'one-stop shop' as NHS procurement puts it, to manage the service for a negotiated price, at reduced risk to the NHS. Fine: just as long as the contractors performance is acceptable.
I am not so sure whether it is a good idea for NHS departments to go out trawling for business, so to speak, or what the motivation to take on contracts is - unless John's department has 'excess capacity'. Some would argue that departments, which cannot provide for all commitments in the parent organisation should not commit to other contractual obligations (I am not suggesting that John's department cannot meet its obligations).
Surely the continued existence of an NHS department which currently meets it obligations to the organisation is justified - what is the motivation to expand beyond the bounds of the parent organisation? I could understand it if it were to improve the management of services at other organisations but this does not necessarily need a contractor to take over the services does it? Perhaps, in John's opinion, it does.
I am wondering how one NHS organisation such as John's department would take on the additional risks associated with the provision of external service contracts to another - whether this would be some form of NHS indemnity or an insurance scheme of some sort. If there are staff involved from other NHS Trusts who may be affected and they are subsequently disadvantaged under the terms of the contract, then out-sourcing is not acceptable in my view, particularly if the service only improves at their expense. What happens if the contract fails - where do these individuals stand?
I think when TUPE applies it is intended to protect employees but it subsequently affects the relationship between employee and employer after the transfer, in such a way that it can be detrimental - swings and roundabouts. It would be really interesting if John were to expand on the views he put forward, earlier on.
