NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE EMPLOYEES (DISPUTE) (Hansard, 20 November 1957)

§ The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith)
I made a full statement to the House on the general question on 6th November.
In reply to the particular point raised in the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's Question, certain action has been taken on the initiative of some of the unions concerned, but I have no evidence that the action taken is as yet prejudicing the interests of patients.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
Since it is obviously desirable to try to settle this unfortunate dispute, may I ask the Minister whether he will consider the desirability of this claim being looked at once more by the Whitley Council and whether, if that can be arranged, he will ensure that in future the Government do control the management side so that effective negotiation can take place and that if it breaks down the matter can go to arbitration?

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
I think that the right hon. Gentleman and the House are aware of the complexities of the particular Whitley Council composition on the management side in this case. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly. The right hon. Gentleman is now suggesting that we make effective representations which our minority of five were not able to 388 make effective before. I am in some difficulty in seeing how that can be done without a complete modification of the Whitley machinery.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
Is it not clear that unless and until the Minister does this the whole functioning of the Whitley Council becomes impossible?

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
No, Sir. I have already told the House that there are two stages in this matter, the Whitley negotiating stage and the express statutory duty placed by the regulations upon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
There is one further point. Is it not desirable that the Government, who are the effective employers in this matter, should be effective in negotiations?

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
We sought to be effective in the negotiation, but, as I have already explained to the House, the views of our Departmental representatives did not prevail; they alone represent the taxpayer who has to find the money for these people.

§ Mr. Robens
Is it not a fact that the Minister now complains of the complexity of the management side, but that he and those responsible for it are responsible for the composition of the management side into which they changed it? How far has the right hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded in dealing with Sir Noel Hall's report on the regrading scheme? Is not this another way—if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would advance his consideration of it—in which the matter might be brought before the appropriate authorities and settled?

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
I am not making a matter of complaint about the composition. I recognise that this is the position of the composition of the management side. All that I have asked the House to do is to face the consequences and implications of that position.
My reply to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that the report of Sir Noel Hall is at present before the Whitley Council. In due course, after the Council has considered it, it will, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, make its recommendations to my right hon. Friend and myself. I have already told a deputation 389 of the Whitley Council that it need not be assumed from the withholding of approval to the 3 per cent. wage increase that effect would necessarily not be given to the Noel Hall recommendation.

§ Mr. Robens
May we have that statement a little more clearly, in view of the fact that the Minister vetoed the previous recommendation? Is he now saying that he will not veto any recommendation on the grading scheme?

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
No, Sir. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman understands all this a good deal better than he would have the House believe. The decision about the 3 per cent. wage increase was taken expressly, specifically, and exclusively in the general economic context of the Government's policy in regard to inflationary pressures arising from increases linked to the cost of living. Sir Noel Hall is concerned not with the cost of living aspect, but with the possibilities of regrading, in other words, of revaluation in the career structure for this service. It raises quite different points, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as or better than anybody.

§ Dr. Summerskill
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the successful treatment of patients in hospital depends in large measure upon the keeping of detailed records, which are kept by the clerical employees? The Minister has told us this afternoon that he has not observed any deterioration, but will not the failure to keep these records only be observed in a few days' time and will it not jeopardise treatment?

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
I am, of course, aware of the particular functions of the administrative and clerical employees which impinge most directly upon the patient. I can assure the right hon. Lady that I am keeping that aspect of the matter very carefully in mind.

§ Dame Irene Ward
Can my right hon. and learned Friend say when this particular Whitley Council machinery for dealing with the appropriate hospital service employees was established?

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
I think it was in 1950 or 1951, but without notice I would not like to tie myself to a date.

§ Mr. Mellish
Does the Minister understand that the action he has taken—I 390 believe it was the first time any Minister had taken such action in the whole of the Whitley machinery in fifty-two years—is deeply resented by the whole trade union movement? [HON. MEMBERS: "No.") Yes, because the Minister has broken down the good will which has always existed between the management side and the employees' side of Whitley. The point is that the management side was unanimous on this matter; it represents the employers in the service. What the Minister has done is to overthrow the decision which it made in the light of the facts as it saw them.
Secondly, I want to ask the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] At least, it is a good speech—how he proposes to keep this House informed of developments in the hospital service? Undoubtedly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) has said, there will be a deterioration in this service within the next few days.

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
I cannot accept the position as it is put by the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), who, I know, feels sincerely and, indeed, vehemently about this matter. The Confederation of Health Service Employees has not yet decided whether to take part in this ban. The National Federation of Hospital Officers has definitely decided not to take part. The members of N.A.L.G.O. employed in Coventry hospitals decided yesterday not to join in the overtime ban.
As to keeping the House of Commons informed, I must, subject, of course, in this as in all things, to your guidance, Mr. Speaker, try to strike a balance between my natural desire to keep the House fully informed and my desire not to take up the time of the House when I have nothing new to say, a desire which is shared by every hon. Member in his own case.

§ Mr. Blenkinsop
Does the Minister realise that this House would feel very badly indeed if he tried to make use of the general sense of loyalty of nurses and other hospital staff, which may in sonic cases prevent them taking action which otherwise they would gladly take, and that they feel very badly about his action in this matter? Does he recognise 391 that there is a very serious staffing position, which Sir Noel Hall recognised, and that if his proposals are to be carried out it might well mean an increase in salary scales of 20 per cent. to 25 per cent.? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that he ought to accept the Whitley Council's proposals in this matter?

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
If I may respectfully say so, the hon. Member has not been quite so concise as usual in his supplementary question and, therefore, perhaps not as clear as usual. I have already dealt with the report of Sir Noel Hall in answer to the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens).

§ Mr. Callaghan
There are more than 1 million public servants in this country who, for the last thirty years, have always regarded arbitration proceedings as the head and front of Whitley procedure when there has been a dispute which has not been resolved. As, in this case, merely a technicality is involved, there is no dispute—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members opposite should listen—is the Minister applying his mind to the question of how a dispute can be formally registered so that it can go to arbitration and an independent verdict be reached? Otherwise, the Whitley machinery in the public service is in grave jeopardy.

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
This question was among those which, with the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, I discussed in a three-hour interview with the deputation from this Whitley Council a week or two ago. I read in the newspapers that they have now taken counsel's opinion on this matter, but, of course, I am not acquainted with that.

§ Mr. Callaghan
May I press the Minister on this matter? Surely he and the Government have a responsibility for preserving confidence in the Whitley machinery. Therefore, no matter what opinion the staff side may be taking, does he not think that he has a responsibility for consideration of how a dispute, which 392 undoubtedly exists in fact, whether technically it exists or not, can be resolved? Is it not in the interest of the Government as well as the interests of the staff that the Whitley machinery should function?

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
Nothing that I or my right hon. Friends have said has excluded the possibility of arbitration on this, matter if an arbitrable issue is brought up. That has been stated in this House and in another place and that is the position.
This, as I say, was among the questions I discussed with the deputation from the Whitley Council. I discussed it quite freely and frankly with them. I am always happy to see them again, but, in fact, as the hon. Member knows, they went straight from the three hours' discussion to initiate the matter of direct action.

§ Sir Ian Fraser
Is it not clear that unless some sense of abstinence and moderation is exercised—[HON. MEMBERS: "You started it."]—by all those who have a call upon the national wealth, and especially those who had £900 million worth of increases of wages last year, to allow others to have their turn this year, there will be no money for the old-age pensioners, the war pensioners, people who live on small fixed incomes, or those who are not very well paid in our public service?

Mr. Lee
Would the Minister address his mind to the fact that the only reason he was able to veto this issue was that the unions made a success of their application for an increase in wages? Had they put up a very bad case which failed to impress the management side, they could then have gone to arbitration despite anything he might have done. Will he try to resolve that ridiculous position so that the unions can negotiate, arbitrate or conciliate in some way or other?

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
As I have told the House, I discussed these matters with the Whitley Council deputation. If they are desirous of raising again the question of arbitration they will no doubt say so.