§ 2.55 p.m.
§ LORD REIGATEMy Lords, at long last I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government when they intend to publish the regulations governing the schemes of early retirement and protection of salaries for senior officers and others affected by the reorganisation of the National Health Service.
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE)My Lords, as soon as we have completed consultations with staff interests.
§ LORD REIGATEMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that in some cases 633 appointments are being made this month and the officers concerned do not yet know what are the alternatives facing them?
§ LORD ABERDAREYes, my Lords; I am well aware of this. We have done our best to push ahead with the schemes for early retirement and for the protection of salaries. We have put our proposals in the first instance to the Joint Superannuation Consultative Committee. They have made various comments on these proposals and we are about to come forward with further proposals for their consideration.
§ BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOEMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it places an individual senior officer of the utmost importance to the Health Service in a most invidious position that, at the time when he applies for a position which has been brought about by reorganisation, he does not know what his own individual position is, or indeed that of his colleagues?
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, there are a very few people who have so far received appointments, and already the general scheme has been widely publicised and the differences are mainly on only three specific parts of the proposals. But if any individual officer who is in any doubt or has difficulty would care to get in touch with my Department, we will advise him to the best of our ability.
§ LORD REIGATEBut, my Lords, with great respect to my noble friend, that really is a rather odd way of proceeding. Surely it is only right that the officers concerned must wait until they see in print what they are entitled to?
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, these schemes are designed principally to help those who do not get appointments. Those who do get appointments will have plenty of time to consider their position before they take up their appointment after April 1. As I say, we will give them any help we can in the meantime. But surely it is important that the schemes we have put forward for these very vital matters are agreed with staff interests.
§ LORD REIGATEMy Lords, is my noble friend further aware that it is not 634 just a question of those who do not get appointments, but of those who may elect for early retirement instead of appointments? They are not entitled to claim the provisions for earlier retirement once they have accepted a post, and they may find earlier retirement more attractive.
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, I can only repeat my offer that if there are such cases, if they will get in touch with my Department we shall be able very largely to help them to make their decision.
§ BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOEMy Lords, is this not rather prejudicial to any individual officer who may seek to apply to the Ministry, who are in fact going to employ him in the end, for this kind of individual advice? Is the noble Lord really not aware, as his reply appears to indicate, of the very, very low state of morale among these very important senior officers simply because of this really appalling uncertainty about how to choose to proceed at this vital moment in their careers?
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, I do not accept that at all. We have been very hard pushed because the Bill only reached the Statute Book recently. Since then the Department has been doing its best to produce all the guidance that is necessary. There are difficulties—there are bound to be difficulties with the shortage of time—but I do not think in this particular instance more than a very few people are affected; and we certainly will do our utmost to see they obtain the right advice.
§ BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOEMy Lords, in view of the very unsatisfactory nature of that reply, and the Minister's apparent unawareness of the state of morale, I think we may have to ask for a further debate on this matter.
§ LORD REIGATEMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the difficult position of senior officers in the National Health Service who may be offered posts in the reorganised National Health Service in view of the 635 fact that the alternative proposals of the early retirement scheme have not yet been published.
§ LORD ABERDAREYes, my Lords, it is most important that we should proceed in agreement with staff interests.
§ LORD REIGATEMy Lords, can my noble friend say whether the option to choose early retirement will be extended so that officers whose position is uncertain, instead of using the extraordinary and unusual and unsatisfactory course of taking the advice of his Department, may have the alternative option extended after the appointed day?
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, this was one of the suggestions that was made after consultation with staff interests. We are putting our further proposals to them very shortly and we hope that those proposals will go a considerable way to meeting their criticism.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES HASTOEMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the chaos we were afraid of in relation to reorganisation of the National Health Service is even worse than noble Lords on all sides of the House thought?
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, I should have thought that the noble Lady would wish to help us in this matter. The National Health Service is extremely important, reorganisation is extremely important, and we are all doing our best to iron out the wrinkles. I hope that she will be a little more co-operative in helping rather than being too critical of what is a difficult task which is being done in a very short time.
§ BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOEMy Lords, it is very difficult to co-operate in an unfair situation affecting the most senior members of the National Health Service.
§ LORD ABERDAREI do not agree, my Lords, that it is unfair.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, would the noble Lord not say that the duty of the Opposition is to criticise the Government if they consider they are failing in their duty? It is not the duty 636 of the noble Lord to criticise my noble friend for doing her duty.
§ LORD ABERDARENo, my Lords, I would not criticise the noble Baroness for doing her duty, but I thought she was going rather wide of the Question and giving out the impression that there was loss of morale in the Sevice in general.
§ LORD PLATTMy Lords, how can the Department give adequate advice if the proposals for the early retirement scheme are not yet known? If the answer is that they are known, why are they not published?
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, the proposals were put out for comment on May 31, 1973. They are, in general, known, but in detail they cannot be finalised until they are agreed with those people who represent the staff and service. That is why we cannot publish them.
§ LORD REIGATEMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that in fact it would be perfectly possible for the Department to issue those regulations? It would not be the first time that the Secretary of State had come to a decision without consultation.
§ LORD ABERDAREI completely deny that, my Lords; that is not true. I expect my noble friend has in mind the salary question, but there were very particular reasons for that. My right honourable friend is meticulous in consulting the staff interests.
§ LORD SEGALMy Lords, can the noble Lord give an assurance that when these proposals are published they will not result in the too early retirement of any senior officers in the National Health Service?
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, there are provisions in the proposals which would allow health authorities to object to an early retirement in an exceptional case where it was important for the Service that a particular officer should stay on.
§ LORD FISKEMy Lords, I do not really sense in the noble Viscount's reply the feeling of urgency which this matter should have. I went through this experience some ten years ago in the reorganisation of the government of 637 London, but what one is talking about is the career decisions that lie before men over the age of 50.
§ LORD FISKEI am sorry. My question is: is not the corollary to what the noble Viscount has suggested that he should issue instructions that no permanent appointments to the new Health Service should be made until his Department is ready with these new arrangements for the alternative for those who are not re-employed?
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, in the first place, I regret to say that I am not a Viscount. In the second place, the urgency of the matter is fully realised by all of us in the Department. We are up against a very tight timetable, we are working extremely hard to get agreement with staff interests—which must be the first step, surely—and we expect very shortly to be able to issue these regulations.