§ Q1. Mr. Ieuan Wyn JonesTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 February.
§ The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with Chancellor Kohl. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
§ Mr. JonesWill the Prime Minister find time today to look at a report in The Liverpool Daily Post, which confirms that district nurses in my constituency are using their free time to organise fund-raising activities to purchase medical equipment for the use of patients in their homes? Does that not demonstrate to the Government that, far from moonlighting, as suggested by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbitt), nurses are concerned about cuts in the Health Service?
§ Mr. SpeakerBriefly.
§ Mr. JonesWill the right hon. Lady give an assurance to the House that the nurses' pay award to be announced by the review body will be funded in full by the Government, with no strings attached?
§ The Prime MinisterI have no doubt that the nurses in the hon. Gentleman's constituency are doing extremely well and are carrying out their duties to their patients. With regard to revenue provision for the Health Service, in the hon. Member's constituency in 1978–79—[HON MEMBERS: "Here we go."] Yes, here we go with the facts. The hon. Gentleman was complaining about revenue provision. In 1978–79 it was £19 million; in 1988–89 it will be £,58.1 million; an increase in real terms of 45 per cent.
§ Mr. SoamesWill my right hon. Friend commend those nurses who tomorrow will stay at their posts and do their duty? Does she agree that the suggestion that a strike will not gravely damage patient care is dangerous nonsense?
§ The Prime MinisterA strike would gravely damage the patients and increase the waiting lists, which we have been strenuously trying to get down and for which, in this financial year, there has been some £25 million allocated specially to get them down. Another £30 million has been allocated for next year especially to get waiting lists down. A strike would increase waiting lists. It would also increase the burden on the nurses who would not dream of striking because they would never desert their patients.
§ Mr. KinnockWhen Mr. Trevor Clay of the Royal College of Nursing left the meeting with the Secretary of State yesterday he clearly had a strong impression that this year's pay award to the nurses would be fully funded by the Government. Will the Prime Minister tell us whether that impression was accurate—yes or no?
§ The Prime MinisterThere has been a statement — [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes or no."] — issued since by the Royal College of Nursing. The position is as follows. The 849 implementation of the review body's award comes under an undertaking given by Lord Carr, when he was in this House, when the Top Salaries Review Body was set up, together with the review bodies for the armed forces and for doctors and dentists. Lord Carr announced to the House that the Government would not modify their recommendations
unless there are clear and compelling reasons for … doing so".—[Official Report, 2 November 1970; Vol. 805, c. 672.]That has remained the practice. That is quite different from the funding of the implementation. The press statement by the Royal College of Nursing consists of four paragraphs, and I am quite happy to read out the whole lot.
§ Mr. FauldsYes or no.
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Member should listen to what the press notice said. I had better read out the whole press statement by the Royal College of Nursing:
During the meeting between the Royal College of Nursing and the Secretary of State, he stated clearly that the nurses' pay award would be fully implemented 'unless there were clear and compelling reasons for the Government not to do so'.This is the language which has been used in the past when the awards have been interfered with or underfunded.The Royal College of Nursing fully understands that the Secretary of State cannot give a firm assurance on implementation and funding. This view is clearly reflected in a number of newspaper reports.The Royal College of Nursing does not believe that there can be any clear and compelling reasons for not implementing or fully funding the award in 1988.That is the full statement by the Royal College of Nursing, and that is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question.
§ Mr. KinnockGiven the number of nurses leaving the Health Service, the widespread dissatisfaction and the wide scale of public support for proper pay for nurses and full funding, will the Prime Minister tell us what in her opinion would be the clear and compelling reasons for not paying the nurses properly?
§ The Prime MinisterI stand by the comments, remarks and traditional practices that we have already adhered to. The pledge given by Lord Carr and the practice to which the Government have adhered, which has led to increases in pay for nurses of the order of 30 per cent. in real terms, is in contrast to the right hon. Gentleman's record. In the five pay years between 1974–75 and 1978–79 Labour cut nurses' pay in real terms in four of those years.
§ Mr. KinnockJust to be absolutely clear, is the Prime Minister saying to the nurses today that she will not offer an undertaking to make full funding of the nurses' pay award this year, just as she has never made full funding of nurses' pay awards?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman has asked this question in different terms three times. The answer is the same: that we have never undertaken to fund in full a pay award before we know what it is and what the structure is. Nevertheless, our total record on nurses' pay —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".]—is absolutely excellent, as I might remind him.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ The Prime MinisterA ward sister on the maximum of the basic scale under the Labour Government was paid £4,900 and is now paid £12,000. That is the result of the Government's stewardship.
§ Mr. DykesNow that my right hon. Friend has fully, comprehensively and satisfactorily answered those points, does she agree that we can use Prime Minister's Question Time for other important subjects? Bearing in mind the United States' position, announced last night, on the Security Council resolution, does she agree that this is a disappointing decision by the United States in view of the importance of that resolution and the gradual approach of the international peace conference in the middle east?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend knows that we support the resolution. My hon. Friend is aware that we have quite clearly come out in favour of an international conference as a framework conference within which bilateral negotiations should take place between King Hussein of Jordan and Israel. I hope one day that other people will come round to that viewpoint and it will make possible further negotiations, which are urgent.
§ Q2. Mr. McKayTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 February.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. McKayWill the right hon. Lady take into consideration the fact that the nurses down from Yorkshire today will listen very carefully to her failure to give clear and compelling reasons for not funding their increase and increasing underfunding? Is it not, in fact, in line with the fiddling of the payment of £8 for welfare benefits, where people are paid a single payment and not on each welfare benefit? That must be taken into account too.
§ The Prime MinisterMay I assure the hon. Gentleman that any clear and compelling reasons would not consist of the prices and incomes policy which hon. Members at present in opposition used to depress nurses' and doctors' pay year after year and, because of their economic stewardship, used to cut the National Health Service.
§ Mr. RedwoodDoes the Prime Minister agree that the position of the Health Service would be greatly improved if the Leader of the Opposition would categorically condemn strike action in the Health Service before we see the recommendations of the pay review body? Would she agree, further—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question of the Prime Minister for which she has responsibility.
§ Mr. RedwoodWould the Prime Minister in the course of her busy day think of a way of persuading the Leader of the Opposition—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]
§ The Prime Ministerrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The Prime Minister must be asked questions on matters which are her responsibility, and for that, I am afraid, she has no responsibility.