Ambulance Workers' Pay (Hansard, 23 January 1990)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper)
My Lords, we are satisfied with the present arrangements as provided by the Whitley Council negotiating machinery.

§ Lord Rochester
My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that, in asking this Question, I am not seeking to intervene in the current unhappy dispute? That would not be helpful. Will she confirm that the chief executive of the National Health Service has proposed that the staff and management sides should undertake a joint review of the ambulance service salary structure in which no preconditions would be set? Does this mean, for example, that if arbitration or a review body is ruled out, at least some flexible system, such as that now being introduced in parts of the Civil Service, may be used in future to determine the pay of ambulance workers?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, part of the final offer which was made on 5th December included a complete review of the 1986 arrangements, which aim at maximum flexibility.

§ Lord Murray of Epping Forest
My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the arrangements for pay settlements made in the fire service in the winter of 1977, in which my noble friend Lord Callaghan played an incisive part, have produced more than a decade of excellent industrial relations in that critical service? Does she agree that it would indeed be folly to disrupt those arrangements? Does she also agree that in considering the future of the ambulance service it would be wise to reflect on the benefits which have been received from the fire service and to seek to negotiate something which would be, by agreement with the unions, penned to ambulancemen and women?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, my information is that the last review of the salary structure was made in 1986, when ambulancemen and women got an exceptionally good deal at the introduction of the new salary structure. It cost a lot more then than the generality of other pay settlements. Since then, and including the present final offer, the real value of that deal has been more than maintained. In addition, the standard working week has been reduced by one hour.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, has my noble friend noted the attempt by the European Parliament to intervene in this matter? Will she indicate that a firm, positive and definite reply will be sent to it?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, we have indeed noted that members of the British Labour Group in the 924 European Parliament have introduced the question of the ambulance service dispute. However, they have not made any direct contact with the Department of Health or the National Health Service management executive, as far as I am aware.

§ Lord Wyatt of Weeford
My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that, if the workers in the highly inefficient ambulance service want more pay, they should propose higher productivity and savings in that service to pay for it?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord in his basic premise that high settlements anywhere, without compensating productivity gains, undermine competitiveness and cost jobs.

§ Lord Bottomley
My Lords, how can the Minister say the situation is satisfactory when this strike has been going on for weeks and does not appear to be coming to an end? Why do not the Government, instead of making statements every other week—in some cases expressing a different view; and the Minister has today referred us back to the Whitley Council—do what any sensible employer would do and submit the case to arbitration?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, we believe the Whitley Council machinery is the appropriate machinery in this case. I have to say that the main ambulance unions have consistently refused to negotiate on the final offer made on 5th December last year. At the only joint meeting since then it was rejected out of hand without discussion.

§ Lord Colnbrook
My Lords, with reference to this dispute some people say that the ambulancemen have been offered 6.5 per cent. and others say that they have been offered 9 per cent. Can my noble friend help me and the House by saying who has been offered what?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, we cannot understand why NUPE and its associated unions keep insisting that the final offer is still only 6.5 per cent. when everybody has said as plainly as they can that it is at least 9 per cent., backdated to 1st April. That means that a qualified ambulanceman or woman would get back pay to the end of December of up to £680 and up to £980 in London.

Lord Winstanley
My Lords, at the risk of upsetting my noble friend, who feels we should not comment on the present dispute, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness whether, had her circumstances been different and she herself had become an ambulance worker (I am sure she would have been a very efficient and dedicated one), she herself would have been prepared to accept a pay rise of 6.5 per cent. in the present circumstances.

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, as I believe I just said, it is not 6.5 per cent. The noble Lord must remember that this offer was made almost a year ago; it relates to April last year. It coincides very well with other agreements made within the National Health Service.

§ Lord Carr of Hadley
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that however unsatisfactory the pay settlement system for the ambulance workers may appear this year it would be wrong in principle and in practice to alter that system without looking at the system of pay settlements if not throughout the whole public service at least throughout the health service? It would be most unfair on other sectors of workers in the health service to make one ad hoc change, which seems to be what so many noble Lords are pressing for, in my view quite wrongly.

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that most reasonable point. As I said previously, it is a better offer than that accepted by over 200,000 other staff also doing important work in the health service, the offer having been made on the same basis.

§ Baroness Seear
My Lords, has anyone considered—I am sure that they have not—blowing the dust off the Megaw Committee Report? I declare an interest because I was a member of that committee on the pay of non-industrial civil servants. It recommended that negotiations should take place within the inter-quartile range in comparison with the private sector. That would seem to be particularly appropriate to such people as ambulance workers.

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, we are aware of that point.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, does the Minister agree that when an industrial dispute has to be resolved according to existing arrangements, by and large it is seldom profitable to consider other arrangements, in particular if those other arrangements could well involve serious and complex problems of classification?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising that point. In an organisation where pay accounts for over 70 per cent. of costs it is essential that NHS management retains control of the amounts that it pays out for salaries and wages. It has to ensure that pay awards do not divert resources from patient care.

The Earl of Halsbury
My Lords, are the Government giving serious consideration to the possibility of transferring qualified ambulancemen at least to the responsibility of the pay review body for nurses, midwives and professions supplementary to medicine? It seems to me that it might be an easy solution in the future.

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, in looking to the future we are looking for greater flexibility. We recognise that a modern ambulance service needs to reward the use of additional paramedical skills. That is why the current offer includes an additional £500 per annum for staff with extended training to National Health Service training authority standards.
Perhaps I may make a further point. We have also offered to agree with the unions a national 926 framework for the recognition of staff with intermediate skills with payment backdated to 1st April 1989.

§ Lord Stallard
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that her complacency about the adequacy of the present arrangements will not be shared by millions of people up and down the country? They will certainly not be happy with the replies that she has given to some of the very pertinent points that have been raised. A 9 per cent. increase over 18 months is 6.5 per cent. over 12 months. We continue to say therefore that 6.5 is the rate of annual increase.

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, I hope that I have not given the impression of complacency. I have pointed out that the very great importance we attach to these negotiations is in order to ensure that pay awards do not divert resources from patient care.

§ Lord Ennals
My Lords, perhaps I may put two questions to the noble Baroness. First, is she aware that on 28th November 15 Peers and Cross-Benchers wrote to the Secretary of State about the ambulance dispute? They were all people who had had great experience with the National Health Service. It took him five weeks to answer. He then said that he would not receive a deputation. Was that not rather discourteous?
Secondly, what is one to make of a Secretary of State who on "Panorama" a week ago called for a two-tier health service and a two-tier ambulance service; and three days later denied that he had said what millions of people heard and saw him say?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me notice of the first part of his question. I have to make the point that the Christmas Recess period intervened. My right honourable friend appreciated the offer of a meeting but, as I understand he made clear in his reply, matters had moved on since the letter was written. Management had by then made the final offer of 5th December which included the 9 per cent. basic increase over the 18-month period, an additional £500 for paramedical staff, and the other factors that I have already touched upon this afternoon. Unfortunately I did not see the "Panorama" programme to which the noble Lord referred. However, with regard to editing arrangements, not all that one reads in the newspapers should be taken at face value.

§ Lord Mackie of Benshie
My Lords, what is the average pay in the ambulance service? How does it compare with the average industrial wage?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, the national rate for a qualified ambulanceman is currently £10,093. In ondon a qualified ambulanceman earns £11,074 per annum. Those are basic rates. Individuals may have take-home pay that varies.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, in her reply to my noble friend about the "Panorama" programme, is the noble Baroness aware that she is 927 suggesting that the programme makers had "fixed" that programme? Since we know what we saw and heard, is the noble Baroness suggesting that the programme was edited so that we did not hear what we heard or see what we saw?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, I hope that I made it clear that I did not see the programme. I therefore did not hear or see anything. Nevertheless, as a general premise I am sure that the noble Lord will accept what I said earlier.

§ Lord Rochester
My Lords, the noble Baroness referred earlier to the Whitley Council. Although management representatives are in theory free to negotiate with the staff side of the Whitley Council, is it not the case that in practice settlements can be reached only with the prior approval of the Secretary of State or even the Treasury? Are there therefore not three sides to these negotiations rather than two?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, no negotiators, whether in the public or private sector, can be expected to go into pay negotiations with a blank cheque. The National Health Service management agrees with Ministers the extent of the negotiating limits for various staff groups. How these are used is for the management side to determine.