HC Deb 08 June 1982 vol 25 cc19-21 3.30 pm
Mr. David Ennals (Norwich, North) (by private notice)

M asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement about the National Health Service pay dispute and the current industrial action.

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

As I explained in my statement to the House on 27 May, offers have been made within the Whitley councils to all the major staff groups in the National Health Service. Certain groups providing direct patient care—in particular nursing and midwifery staff who account for about half the work force, have been offered 6.4 per cent. Doctors and dentists were offered increases averaging 6 per cent. with more for junior doctors following the report of the Doctors and Dentists Review Body. Other staff have received offers worth 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. on present earnings. All told, these offers amount to additional spending of £320 million on directly employed staff in England alone.

Hospital consultants, general practitioners and junior doctors are currently considering, or have accepted, this offer. The Royal College of Nursing ballotted its members on the offer of 6.4 per cent. and a majority voted against acceptance. Following that vote, the leaders of the Royal College of Nursing asked to meet me and I have arranged a meeting for tomorrow. On Thursday, we shall be meeting members of the nurses Whitley council to discuss new permanent arrangements for determining pay.

The Health Service unions representing the other main groups of staff have called their third 24-hour stoppage today in support of their claim for pay increases of about 12 per cent. Preliminary reports suggest that, as on the previous two days of action, the response has varied considerably in different parts of the country. Overall the effect has been that, whilst doctors and the majority of nurses have maintained patient care, admissions in many areas have been restricted to accidents and emergency cases, and routine treatment restricted or denied to patients altogether. Hospital support services have been reduced in many places. In a few areas emergency services have not been maintained and contingency arrangements have had to be brought into effect to provide accident and emergency cover. All of this is bound to have had an adverse effect on patients, which is why we strongly deplore the industrial action being taken.

Mr. Ennals

Does the Secretary of State accept that there is broader opposition in the NHS to the Government's pay proposals than ever before, including in 1979? Does he further accept that this is the first time since the creation of the NHS that the Royal College of Nursing has turned down a pay offer, by an overwhelming majority? Does he also accept that 4 per cent. or 6£4per cent. is an insult to nurses and Health Service workers, when some people on top salaries will receive increases of 18 per cent. and 21 per cent.? Given the damage that is being done to patient care, and in view of the lengthening waiting lists, will the right hon. Gentleman make a new offer, or refer the issue to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service?

Mr. Fowler

I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said. The House will not take many lessons from him, given his role in 1979. As I said, I regret the result of the ballot by the Royal College of Nursing. However, it is fair to point out that only one-third of the members voted in the ballot. I have made it clear that representatives of the Royal College of Nursing are welcome to see me, and a meeting has been arranged tomorrow.

One of the things that we shall discuss at that meeting will be a new permanent arrangement for nurses' pay. The Royal College of Nursing very much wants that and I am committed to it. The ballot shows the urgent need to find a new permanent arrangement. However, it does not tell us how the new money that is being sought throughout the NHS is to be raised. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are spending over £12 billion on the National Health Service, and the service has been increased, not cut.

Several Hon. Members

rose —

Mr. Speaker

Order. Although this is a private notice question, I shall call three hon. Members from each side before we move on to the statement by the Prime Minister.

Mr. Michael Morris (Northampton, South)

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the 6.4 per cent. is an average, and that if the Royal College of Nursing wants any change in the mix of that 6.4 per cent. he is open to suggestions? Is my right hon. Friend in a position to tell the Royal College of Nursing and the nursing profession that he will come forward with his proposals for a long-term arrangement within a set time limit?

Mr. Fowler

I can reassure my hon. Friend on both of those points. Clearly, the 6.4 per cent. is an average. I am committed to seeking a new permanent arrangement. Hon. Members may disagree about other things, but I hope they will agree that it makes sense to try to arrange that. Successive Governments have sought to do so, and this Government wish to make progress on the matter.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe)

The Minister seems to forget that the Conservative Government destroyed the machinery for finding adequate comparisons for wage rates within the NHS. Since the nurses and the midwives staff side of the Whitley council yesterday decided unanimously to reject the right hon. Gentleman's offer, will he give them a definite timetable for setting up suitable machinery, and will he agree that it will apply to all staff in the NHS and not only to the nurses? Furthermore, will he use the good offices of ACAS to reach a rapid conclusion before the situation escalates beyond control?

Mr. Fowler

Under no circumstances can the Government be accused of dragging their feet about the new permanent arrangement. We have made every effort to bring about such meetings. The first meeting is to take place on Thursday. I am prepared to consider the hon. Lady's important point about the implications for the other staff. If the unions wish to pursue that matter with me, I shall be anxious to respond. I have made it clear that it would not be right to subcontract the decision on what the nation can afford to some form of arbitration procedure.

Mr. Anthony Grant (Harrow, Central)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that much more money would be available for nurses pay and other essential medical purposes if the health authorities contracted out many more of their ancillary services to private enterprise?

Mr. Fowler

I understand that that point and it is important that the public and those in the National Health Service should understand that during the past three years the number employed in the National Health Service has increased by 47,000. As far as I know, that is not remotely true of any other public service or of any part of the private sector.

Mr. Clement Freud (Isle of Ely)

Although we welcome the early meeting, does the Secretary of State recall that we have all long talked of the decency and responsibility of the nursing staff? Now that they have thrown out his pay offer, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is no diminution in their decency and responsibility? Is it not time that he increased the offer and had an incomes policy

Mr. Fowler

I do not know what is the hon. Gentleman's definition of an incomes policy—and I am sure that he does not either. Our respect for the nurses and for the Royal College of Nursing is in no way diminished. That is why the meeting is to take place as speedily as possible.

Mrs. Jill Knight (Birmingham, Edgbaston)

Has my right hon. Friend been able to make an assessment of the long-term effects in the battle against inflation if all the people at present striking were granted their demands?

Mr. Fowler

My hon. Friend puts her finger on the major point. If we were to accede to the claim that is being put forward we should have to find £750 million extra. I do not believe that it can conceivably make sense—when we have inflation down to single figures—to contemplate such increases. The aim must be not only to reduce inflation but to keep it to single figures.

Mr. Reg Race (Wood Green)

Is not the Secretary of State aware that funding a 12 per cent. increase for every person employed in the National Health Service would cost three and a half warheads for the Trident nuclear submarines? Is not the right hon. Gentleman interested in that sort of trade-off and paying National Health Service workers a decent living wage? Is he aware that there is great anger among the trade unions and the Royal College of Nursing about the way in which the proposals for a long-term settlement of nurses pay are being put forward? Why have the Government rejected indexation and links with other groups of workers? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great anger among National Health Service workers, who want jam today as well as tomorrow?

Mr. Fowler

The hon. Gentleman is wrong on virtually every point that he has put forward. If he wants military comparisons, he might reflect on the fact that the Army, on average, is taking a pay increase of 6.1 per cent. I do not believe that even the hon. Gentleman, with his well-known standards of fairness, could accuse the Government of dragging their feet over the long-term arrangements for nurses pay.