HC Deb 03 May 1962 vol 658 cc1350-60

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

10.6 p.m.

Mr. Carol Johnson (Lewisham, South)

I welcome this opportunity of dealing with a number of important matters connected with the subject of redundancy arising from the proposed reorganisation of the hospital service. Obviously, in a short debate of this character it would be impossible to go into great detail. All I can do is to refer in general terms to the main doubts and genuine fears which now exist among those who may possibly be affected at some future date.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health must know by now that the Hospital Plan for England and Wales has created anxiety among National Health Service staffs. It is a long-term plan, a plan on a great scale for hospital development. Paragraph 6 of the plan refers to the fact that it takes several years to plan and carry out such a development, and that it would hardly be worth while looking ahead for a period of less than ten years in terms of "starts", as the plan calls them, which means roughly fifteen years in terms of completions. It is clear, therefore, that the plan is not a mere programme of tidying up or of local reorganisation. On the contrary, it is a major plan of reorganisation on a national scale.

As the House is aware, it is contemplated by this plan that ultimately as many as 1,250 hospitals will be closed. In those circumstances, although there will, of course, at the same time be a great deal of rebuilding, it is obvious that it would not be possible to carry out such a major operation without there being a substantial impact on the staff employed.

This point is recognised in the plan itself, for in paragraph 51 it says that the staffing of the new hospital service must be the subject of a whole series of studies, commencing with a review of medical hospital staffing. However, so far as I am aware, none of this series of studies has been begun, nor has even preliminary planning for them begun. There is, therefore—I think understandably so—uncertainty about the future; and it is this uncertainty which is the cause of the anxiety to which I have referred. It is true that the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry quite recently said that he believed there would be no serious redundancy, but it is well to remember that any redundancy would not occur this year, or next year, and may, indeed, not occur until after the lapse of ten years. What can be said with reasonable certainty is that the prospect of redundancy cannot be ruled out.

I am sure that all the staffs likely to be affected by reorganisation would prefer to remain in the hospital service, and all the staff organisations would, I am sure, be willing to co-operate to the full in reducing to the minimum the risk of redundancy, but the measures which have so far been announced by the Ministry of Health for dealing with the re-deployment of staff seem to be inadequate, and something much more specific and much wider in scope is required.

For instance, is it unreasonable to suggest that if staffs cannot be found suitable alternative employment within their own employing authority regional hospital boards should be made responsible for placing such staff in alternative employment where this is available? Again, in those many cases which will undoubtedly arise where alternative employment, though not available in the same area, would be available in another regional board area, ought not it to be the Minister's clear responsibility to see that redundant staff are placed in such employment?

At present, there is no satisfactory liaison machinery whereby persons to be declared redundant in one area can be placed in another, and I strongly urge on the Parliamentary Secretary that her right hon. Friend should proceed to establish some such machinery forthwith. This would involve the creation of a central register of some sort under the control of a body which I suggest should include representatives both of the staffs and the employing bodies. I hope that this suggestion will be borne in mind when the staffing studies to which I have referred are under way, because, unless some such machinery as this is set up in consultation with the staff organisations the fear of redundancy will undoubtedly remain.

There is a second and even greater cause of anxiety. It is the absence so far of a satisfactory compensation scheme to cover any persons who might become redundant. The compensation proposals which the Minister has published are unsatisfactory, inadequate, and quite unsuitable for the circumstances with which they will have to deal. They can be justified neither on grounds of logic nor equity and should be withdrawn without further delay.

The whole basis of the compensation proposals of the Minister is misleading, because in the circular which contains them it claims to deal with redundancy in consequence of organisational changes made by their employing authority. But is it not clear from all that I have said that the scheme is, in fact, related to the hospital reorganisation scheme, known as the Ten Year Plan? If it is to deal with redundancy on a national scale it needs to be completely recast.

The Minister misled the House—I have no doubt quite unwittingly—when, in reply to a supplementary question by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) on 5th March, he said that the scheme to which I have referred had been discussed with representatives of the staff, and added: … I am not aware that there is any—certainly no substantial—disagreement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1962; Vol. 655, c. 15.] In fact, both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary must know that representatives of the staffs have expressed their complete dissatisfaction with the proposed arrangements.

Time will not allow me to deal at length with what a revised scheme ought to provide, but I should like to refer the Parliamentary Secretary to the Regulations which were made in 1948—the National Health Service (Transfer of Officers and Compensation) Regulations—under which compensation became payable to persons who suffered loss of employment or diminution of emoluments arising from the passing of the original National Health Service Act. It is significant that those Regulations remained in force for ten years, which is the same period as is contemplated by the new hospital plan.

Moreover, after the Regulations had expired the Minister made use of powers which he had under the 1946 Act to make provision for transfer and compensation of officers on reorganisation of areas and other matters. It was anticipated by staffs in the service that that process would continue for the future. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to explain why that could not be done.

The Minister has substituted instead proposals which can only be described as paltry. Though there is provision for terminal gratuities, as there was under the 1948 Regulations, there is no provision for long-term compensation, nor for loss of pension rights as has hitherto been the case.

There is much more that could be and ought to be said on this matter, but I want, in conclusion, to ask the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to give, on behalf of the Minister, a firm assurance that everything possible will be done to avoid redundancy and that the Minister will establish suitable liaison machinery for the placing of redundant staff. I hope that, in addition, she will prevail upon her right hon. Friend, for all the reasons which I have given, to withdraw the proposals that have been so much criticised and, in consultation with the staff organisations, devise a better and fairer scheme which will bring these public servants into line with schemes of compensation in local government and the reorganisation of the water industry.

Otherwise, the Minister will create the impression that he is less zealous for the interests of the public servants for whom he is ultimately responsible than his colleagues in other fields.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson (St. Pancras, North)

I will take up only a few minutes of the hon. Lady's time merely to underline one or two of the points which have been made so cogently by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewis-ham, South (Mr. C. Johnson). Like him and, I am sure, the whole House, I hope that little redundancy will result from the operation of this hospital plan. I believe that there will not be a great deal, but it would be foolish not to recognise that there is considerable anxiety at the moment among hospital staffs.

In view of that, I can only describe these redundancy proposals of the Minister as mean and unsatisfactory. The first question I want to ask the hon. Lady is what excuse there was for introducing redundancy terms which are far less favourable than the terms introduced by the Labour Government in 1948, which were in operation until two or three years ago. This was essentially a case to be negotiated and agreed with the representatives of hospital staffs, more particularly in the light of the present loss of confidence in the Whitley Councils, which derives very largely from ministerial interference in their work.

Instead of going to the Whitley Councils and thrashing out an agreement, the Minister heard the views of the staff side and then proceeded very largely to ignore them and issue his circular as an ipse dixit. I suggest that the proper thing for the Minister to do now, is as my hon. Friend said, to withdraw the circular and reopen genuine Whitley Council negotiations with staff representatives.

Finally, I want to refer to the Minister's absence tonight. We are all aware that, normally, the Parliamentary Secretary answers Adjournment debates on health quesions. She always does it very agreeably, if not entirely to the satisfaction of my hon. Friends on all occasions. However, this is a rather special instance, because the Minister's good faith has been called into question on this matter, arising out of the reply he gave to a supplementary question of mine on 5th March, when he said that there was no substantial disagreement with staff representatives over these redundancy terms.

This is just not true. I have no doubt that the Minister had no wish to mislead the House, but, he did mislead the House. He had the opportunity about a week later, on another Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), to put it right, and he failed to do so. Now that the matter has been brought up by my hon. Friend tonight, I am both surprised and disappointed that the Minister did not come here to explain his position personally and to offer an apology to the House, and, indeed, to the staff side of the Whitley Council. I hope that at least we shall have an apology by proxy on the Minister's behalf from the Parliamentary Secretary.

10.21 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt)

I know, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson) suggested, that some staffs have been anxious about the possible effect of the hospital plan on their careers, and therefore, with him, I welcome this debate, in order, I hope, that the outcome of it may be to remove some of the uncertainties to which he referred.

I should like to make it clear at once that, While in due course the plan may involve considerable redeployment of staff, we expect that it will be rare for difficulties to arise in finding posts elsewhere in the Service for those who want them, and I am glad to have the support of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) in that statement. There is no question of a sudden or dramatic change. Implementation of the plan will be a gradual process over a long period of years, with ample time for providing for the future of the staffs affected by the changes that are brought about. The detailed arrangements are set out in a Memorandum (HM (62) 12), of which both hon. Members said they had copies, published on 8th March.

This scheme covered non-ancillary staff, and was supplementary to the one published in June, 1960, for ancillary, that is, domestic and manual, staff. It provides for staff who are displaced by any kind of administrative reorganisation, including developments under the hospital plan. Much the most important part of these arrangements is the provision made to help displaced staff to secure other Health Service employment. We in the Ministry fully share the concern of the staff interests that redundancy, in the sense of the loss to the Health Service of the services of experienced staff, ought to be avoided to the fullest possible extent. We have asked all authorities to co-operate to this end.

Often the staff will be found alternative employment by their own authorities. Often again, where a hospital is to be closed, the closure will be dependent on the building of a new hospital or the enlargement of an existing hospital, and it will generally be possible to transfer the staff with the work. For the rest, we have arranged for planned consultations to take place between different authorities, and for regional hospital boards to co-ordinate the exchange of information between different authorities where appropriate, and have asked that all authorities should give priority to suitable displaced officers in the filling of vacancies.

Given the ample time that there will be for advanced planning, we are confident that these arrangements will mean that very few staff who want to retain their Health Service employment will not succeed in doing so. For certain staff, assistance with extra travelling expenses for a time or removal expenses will, if necessary, be provided.

One very important feature of the arrangements is the need to let the staff know exactly what is happening, and that, I appreciate, is of great personal importance, and the need to let them know what plans are being made to help them. We have asked all the hospital authorities to bring their staffs into the picture at the earliest possible moment, at the stage at which changes are taking place in their own hospital which will affect them, and we have even indicated in the memorandum that, where the event may be some years ahead, an indication should be given.

It must, nevertheless, be recognised that there are bound to be a few staff for whom other employment cannot be found within the Health Service. Special difficulty can, for example, arise in replacing staff nearing the age of 60 who are unable to claim pension on retirement before that age. My right hon. Friend proposes, subject to the agreement of both Houses of Parliament, to make regulations which will enable such staff, with at least ten years service, to retire on pension if they are over 55 years of age.

For the younger staff, with at least five years' service, who have not been able to find other Health Service employment, the scheme provides, subject to certain conditions, for terminal payments at a rate of two-thirds of the weekly salary for a period of weeks corresponding to their years of service, up to 26 weeks. The terminal payments are intended to help such officers over the period when they may be seeking other employment, and even during this period we expect their employing authority to continue its efforts to find other employment for them. That, again, is mentioned specifically in the memorandum.

The hon. Member for Lewisham, South—and, indeed, the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North—criticised the scheme now put forward on the grounds that it is not as generous as the scheme for compensating officers displaced when the Health Service was introduced in 1948, or that contemplated for staffs who are likely to be displaced by the reorganisation of local government or the water industry. I would point out that the compensation provisions for Health Service staffs made when the Service was introduced in 1948 were on the scale thought appropriate for redundancies created by a major reorganisation brought about directly as a result of legislative action.

That is not the situation with which we are faced here. There is no question now of a major statutory reorganisation taking place all over on a single day. What the plan involves are developments that will take effect gradually over a long period in the natural process of administrative reorganisations to be expected in any large and vital service. For any redundancies that arise in this way, our provisions accord with those considered appropriate for redundancies arising in the same way in other parts of the public service.

On this general question of redundancy, I should like to make it quite clear that any large scale redundancy is, on the face of it, extremely unlikely. I would ask those hon. Members who are interested enough in the subject to stay for this debate to take any grade they like, count how many officers there are in it, make a guess about the new reduction in the number of posts in that grade which is likely to come about over the next ten or fifteen years. That represents the potential redundancy among that grade.

Now see how many of those now in post are within ten or fifteen years of retirement, and guess how many of the others are likely to get higher jobs during that time. The result is the figure of vacancies into which the potential redundant staff can be absorbed. I doubt if it will often work out at less than the first figure. I see that I carry with me the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh). It is often likely to be several times as big. I realise, of course, that this over-simplifies the matter, because vacancies will not always arise just when they are needed, and posts in the same grade are not all paid the same. But, prima facie, the problem will be far from unmanageable.

On the question of representation, I should like to say that the redundancy scheme was fully discussed with the staff side at two meetings between officials of our Department and representatives of the staff interests. Both hon. Gentlemen have asked me to comment on the answer given by my right hon. Friend to a supplementary question put to him in the House, and the hon. Member for Lewisham, South said that my right hon. Friend had misled the House. I do not think that that is the case. Certainly, my right hon. Friend would not have wished to do so. On that occasion, he was making clear that the arrangements proposed under this scheme, so far as they went, were acceptable to the staff interests, and that was so. The staff interests accepted what we have proposed, but, of course, it is also true to go on from there and to say that the staff interests would like the arrangements to extend much further than they do now; and that is exactly what my right hon. Friend was endeavouring to say in answer to the supplementary question which was put to him.

Mr. K. Robinson

Surely one point could not possibly come within the description which the hon. Lady has given. The difference is the question of the responsibility of regional hospital boards for finding jobs. This was not just a difference of degree, it was a difference of kind between the two sides at the discussion.

Miss Pitt

I will come to that point in a moment. In fact, it is my next point. I have to cut short my speech because, as the hon. Gentleman will realise, the time is short as I allowed him to make a contribution to this debate. However I am trying to give all the essential points.

The placing of redundant officers was referred to and the hon. Member suggested that if staff are redundant and cannot be found suitable alternative employment by their own employing authority, the regional hospital boards should be made directly responsible for placing them in other posts; and that where posts are available only in another regional board area, the Minister should assume responsibility. An exchange of information about vacancies is possible through regional hospital boards and through the Ministry of Labour and a large number of hospital vacancies are advertised in the Press and in the specialised journals, so redundant staffs should have no trouble in discovering what vacancies are available.

As matters stand with the Health Service, the actual selection and appointment of staff is a matter for each employing authority, and it seemed to us that we could secure the desired result better by enlisting their voluntary co-operation as the present arrangements provide.

We appreciate that the scheme is not all that the staff associations would have liked. I can understand that the staff associations would have liked higher compensation for staff who cannot be absorbed. But having listened to and carefully considered their views, we did not feel able to go beyond what has been promulgated. As I have said, we are at one with them in wanting to obviate the need for compensation so far as possible and to retain the skill and experience of staff. We consider that the arrangements we have made should enable this to be done. In short, the right way to look at HM (62) 12 is that it is a scheme for avoiding redundancies and to this end the hospital authorities and the staff interests will alike be lending their best efforts, and they can count on the enthusiastic help of the Ministry.

The hon. Member for Lewisham, South concluded by asking for a firm assurance that steps would be taken to avoid redundancies and that I am most happy to give him.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Eleven o'clock.