HC Deb 15 November 1983 vol 48 cc706-8
2. Mr. Adley

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services by how much have staff numbers in the National Health Service changed since 1978; and if he will make a statement relating this to his Department's current manpower policy.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler)

The number of directly employed staff in the National Health Service in England increased by about 69,000 between September 1978 and September 1982 to a total of 828,000. The increase was predominantly among those directly involved in patient care, particularly doctors, nurses and professional and technical staff. Following talks with regional health authorities I have asked for a reduction of 4,800 posts by March 1984—that is a reduction of 0.5 per cent.

Mr. Adley

In the light of that spectacular increase in job numbers, will my right hon. Friend accept that the only criticism of him that is perhaps justified is that he has allowed himself to be painted as a butcher when his record on jobs shows that he is more like a Santa Claus? Do not these figures show that the Opposition's argument on jobs reductions is a hollow sham? Does not my right hon. Friend have a duty to the taxpayer to attempt to control the growth of his huge empire?

Mr. Fowler

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his discerning description of me. It is probably better to be portrayed as a cutter than as a trimmer. My hon. Friend is correct in saying that resources for the National Health Service have increased substantially under this Government. In our period in office, front-line staff numbers, especially nurses, have increased substantially.

Mr. Ashley

In the light of the spectacular cuts that have been announced by a ministerial butcher who dresses up as a Santa Claus with no beard, will the Secretary of State recognise that the cuts are a gross interference in the rights of health authorities to manage their own affairs? Will he take steps to ensure that deprived districts, such as north Staffordshire, suffer no cuts, because they cannot afford any more?

Mr. Fowler

I do not believe that anyone can reasonably portray a reduction of 4,800 posts—0.5 per cent.—as spectacular. This reduction does not add up to that description. The Government had to intervene because health authorities were planning not to reduce or to stabilise manpower, but to increase numbers by 7,000, predominantly among administrative or ancillary staff, not nurses and doctors. In those circumstances, it was right for the Government to intervene.

Mrs. Currie

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on saving £64 million in administrative costs by the abolition of the area health authorities, as reported in Hansard yesterday. Does he agree that the 100,000-plus administrators in the Health Service, which works out at one administrator to every seven other staff, is too high, especially in the Trent region, which covers my constituency?

Mr. Fowler

My hon. Friend, who has long experience in the Health Service and as a health authority chairman, is correct. I hope that health authorities will have noted that the Government would like the reduction in posts to be geared more towards the administrative tail of the Health Service than to nurses and doctors.

Mr. Meacher

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that these manpower cuts are manifestly arbitrary and damaging to clinical care when there are already more than 3,000 doctors and 8,000 nurses and midwives on the dole? Will he tell the House what legal powers he has to enforce these cuts where health authorities are not breaking their cash limits? Is it not shameful that many authorities should be required to dismiss regular nursing staff and then be allowed to take on the same number of agency nurses the next day?

Mr. Fowler

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post as Opposition spokesman on social services. All his statements are factually incorrect. First, there is no evidence of doctor or nurse redundancies. Secondly, there is evidence that the regional chairmen have accepted the targets and will work towards them. Therefore, there is no question of their being forced to break their cash limits. Thirdly, the reductions are not arbitrary. They have been carefully worked out to reduce manpower by 0.5 per cent. after careful talks with every regional health authority.

Several Hon. Members

rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. I appeal for shorter supplementary questions and answers.