§ 2.55 p.m.
§ Lord LEATHERLANDMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether permanent machinery can be set up to prevent strikes and threats of strikes by hospital staffs.
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, Her Majesty's Government are naturally concerned to avoid strikes by National Health Service staff, especially where they may affect the care and safety of patients. It is considered unlikely, however, that any effective permanent machinery could be devised which would prevent all such action. I am glad to be able to inform your Lordships that 8 discussions are currently taking place to consider ways of improving the machinery for dealing with collective grievances.
§ Lord LEATHERLANDMy Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, in view of the distress caused to relatives and the danger caused to patients by these dislocations, can he tell us the exact nature of these discussions?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, yes. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has met leaders of the major Trades Union Congress affiliated National Health Service trade unions and the main organisations representing the medical and nursing staffs—I am referring to the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Midwives. The purpose of that meeting is to see whether some arrangement can be formulated whereby grievances affecting any group within the National Health Service could be dealt with very quickly. The first meeting was held on 24th May when the representatives to whom I have referred were present. That meeting took place, and future meetings will take place, under the chairmanship of my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Services.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that the principle of withdrawing ones labour is one that we accept and have accepted for a long time? We also accept that almost every strike causes suffering of some kind. However, when it causes suffering to people who are helpless, disabled and cannot do anything for themselves, surely we can depart from the principle, which is accepted by almost everybody, that people have a right to withdraw their labour? Is it not possible to promote some kind of arbitration machinery in cases of this sort in order to prevent, so far as it is practicable, additional suffering?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for his comments and observations. The particular purpose of the discussions which are taking place is to see whether some firm conclusions can be reached as to future discussions. It is hoped that when some sort of agreement is reached 9 it could, perhaps, be put to the General Whitley Council with a view to its being able to draw up some kind of agreement which would be acceptable to everybody concerned in the National Health Service, should there be any grievance coming from any section.
§ Lord TRANMIREMy Lords, do not the present difficulties show that there are certain defects in the Whitley Council machinery? Could the review include a review of the Whitley Council machinery?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I am speaking from memory, but I think that I am right in saying that my noble friend Lord McCarthy undertook, at the Government's request, a complete review into the working of the Whitley machinery, the results of which were published a few months ago after three years' very careful study. The Government are looking at that report. If I am wrong I shall certainly let the noble Lord know.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, my noble friend has mentioned discussions. Have there been any discussions with the TUC General Council about this matter? After all, the Whitley Council has no authority in a matter of this sort; it can only engage in discussions and negotiations. As this is a matter of high moral principle, is it not advisable to have some discussion with the TUC?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, apologise if I did not make it clear, but at the first meeting on 24th May, to which were invited representatives of the various bodies engaged in the National Health Service, in fact a representative of the Trades Union Congress was present.
§ Lord SEGALMy Lords, instead of setting up any new machinery, could it conceivably be possible in future for hospital staffs not to be engaged unless they voluntarily agree to waive their perfectly justifiable right to strike where lives of patients are concerned?—because such strikes were totally unknown before the advent of the National Health Service.
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I think I can say that the Government—and I am sure that I am speaking for the whole of your Lordships' House—deplore matters resulting from stoppages and 10 strikes where they affect people in the community. I think it might be very difficult to exact the kind of undertaking for which my noble friend is asking. But, obviously, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is very concerned, and that is why the discussions are taking place at the moment at the highest possible level.
§ Lord THOMASMy Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that although we hear a great deal about human rights in other parts of the world it is about time that we took steps to ensure that the human rights of our own people when they are sick are fully looked after? Further, will he not agree that in these days in this country the so-called National Health Service is neither national nor in a very healthy condition, and does not give a very good service?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I would advise the noble Lord to read the general daily Press. Recently there have been a number of poll on the opinions of the ordinary people of this country who use the National Health Service, asking them to comment on it. The majority of them are very well-satisfied with the National Health Service as it is.
§ Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILLMy Lords, although it might be unreasonable to expect any of the staff totally to give up the right to withdraw labour, would it not be quite reasonable to require them to do so with arbitration procedure until that arbitration had taken place?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. The whole purpose of these discussions is to try to arrive at a formula whereby if there are any grievances at all they can be dealt with almost immediately at Area Health Authority level, so as to prevent any stoppages or strikes.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, is not all the blame in this case being placed on the nurses and the hospital staff? As the father of two nurses,. I know that their conditions have been intolerable. Although I am in favour of necessary arbitration, should not some blame for these situations be attached to the management as well as to the National Health Service staff?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I do not think that any useful purpose would be served if I embarked upon a process of apportioning blame. Let us get down to the fact that discussions are taking place at this moment.
§ Lord LEATHERLANDMy Lords, while thanking my noble friend for telling us about the three prestigious organisations which his right honourable friend has consulted, will he also bear in mind that the National Union of Public Employees—with which I have no connection whatever—is largely involved in these disturbances and dislocations at hospitals? Would it not be a good idea if his right honourable friend also consulted them?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I thought that I said very clearly that the discussions included leaders of the major TUC-affiliated National Health Service trade unions, which includes COHSE and NUPE.