§ 4. Mr. Willie W. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on nurses' pay and the representations made to him on the recent proposals of Her Majesty's Government in response to the review body's recommendations.
§ Mr. FowlerFollowing my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's announcement on nurses' pay on 6 June, we have received a number of letters. Most have concerned the staging of the award and its funding. Agreement has now been reached with the staff side on all the new salary scales, which were notified to health authorities on 1 July.
§ Mr. HamiltonIs the Secretary of State aware that anyone interested in the Health Service was appalled by the miserable ministerial speeches made in yesterday's debate? Does he recognise that for every percentage point over 3 per cent. paid to nurses and others there will be a diminution in the standard of service to patients, because of the tight cash limits imposed on the local health authorities? Does he further recognise that even with the 5.6 per cent. increase that is to be given to nurses—those dedicated people—between now and February they will have to suffer a reduction in their standard of living?
§ Mr. FowlerI do not agree with anything that the hon. Gentleman has said, including his comments on the outstanding speeches made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security. Since 1979, nurses' pay has gone up by 23 per cent. above inflation. After the review pay award, their pay will have increased by between 25 and 30 per cent. The Government set up the independent pay review body which the nurses wanted, a desire which the Labour party ignored.
§ Mr. ColvinWill my right hon. Friend recognise the unique importance of midwives, even if the pay review does not? Will he ensure that in the final recommendation midwives' pay is related to their contemporaries who remain in nursing or who progress to health visiting?
§ Mr. FowlerI am sure that the review body will take that into account. We recognise the great importance of midwives in the Health Service.
§ Mr. PavittWill the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the pay award was, on average, 8.5 per cent., possibly rising to 14 per cent. for some grades, but that in the year 1985–86 nurses will receive an average of 5.6 per cent.? Will he now look at another problem that he has not solved—that of bottle-necks? Is he aware that in hospitals near here there is such a shortage of neonatal nurses that, although there is sufficient cash, the service is run in a way that is hazardous to the health of patients? Is he further aware that there is a shortage of theatre sisters and sister tutors?
§ Mr. FowlerI shall examine any specific issue that the hon. Gentleman wishes to draw to my attention. The 157 review body recommendations mean that nurses' pay will increase from between 4.1 and 14.3 per cent., and for professions auxiliary to medicine by up to 16.6 per cent. The award has to be staged, but by the beginning of the new financial year all those changes will be in place. This is an outstanding award for the nurses and it would do the hon. Gentleman more credit if he recognised it.
§ Mr. MarlowWhy, when the Northampton district area health authority, which is one of the most economic and efficient health authorities in the country, can provide for nurses' pay without a cut in services, do the more profligate authorities seem to have a problem? Is it that the Labour party wants a propaganda weapon with which to beat the Government over the head, when, in fact, the health authorities could do the job properly?
§ Mr. FowlerFew health authorities are complaining that they are unable to manage. One or two of those that are complaining are the ones which complain about virtually everything. At the beginning of this year we provided £500 million more cash for health authorities in England. The stage award that we have announced for this year can be afforded out of that.
§ Mr. KennedyHas the right hon. Gentleman seen the reported response by Mr. Trevor Clay of the Royal College of Nursing to the speech made by the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security yesterday? If so, what is the Secretary of State's response?
§ Mr. FowlerI have seen the letter that Mr. Clay wrote to The Times this morning, if that is what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to talk about nurses' pay, he should check with Mr. Clay whether he and the RCN supported the setting up of an independent pay review body. This Government have achieved that. The Labour Government ignored the problem.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursHas the Secretary of State seen the Nursing Mirror survey, which reveals that 90 per cent. of all nurses believe that their wards are dangerously understaffed, and shows that trainee nurses are responsible for the manning of wards at night? Is that fair, and how does the Secretary of State justify that? The voice of the profession demands action.
§ Mr. FowlerThat question is not fair, because the Government have put more money and resources into the Health Service than the Labour Government did. Above all, we have put more money into the Health Service capital building programme. The hon. Gentleman's question reveals that he is unaware that the last Labour Government cut the capital programme.