NHS Pay Dispute: Picketing (Hansard, 22 July 1982)

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne)
My Lords, from reports received it would appear that hospitals have generally coped with the industrial action much better than might have been expected. I have no hesitation in saying that this is due to the magnificent efforts of those staff who have remained at their posts and continued to care for patients. I urge the trade unions to reflect upon the futility of their present action, to call it off, and to return to the negotiating table.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that admirable reply, is he nonetheless aware that the efforts of the magnificent staff who are remaining at their posts are at many great hospitals, such as St. Thomas' across the river, being gravely impeded by the action of the pickets, who deny entry of essential supplies and indeed, in many cases, of patients? Do the Government accept that where human wellbeing and, indeed, human life are involved it really is essential that these supplies should be admitted, whatever action the pickets may see fit to take?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I certainly deplore the fact that in many cases, including at St. Thomas' as my noble friend says, the action of the pickets has led to very serious effects on the running of the hospital. Emergency services have in general been maintained, although there have been one or two cases where even that modest level of service has not been achieved. Perhaps I could say that on the occasion of the explosions in London recently the pickets who were on duty at once went back to their posts to treat those who were injured.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—

Lord Wallace of Coslany
My Lords—

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I do not know whether I can help. I think there was a slight contretemps when both the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, got up. I think perhaps if the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, put his question, that might solve the problem.

Lord Wallace of Coslany
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl; I am somewhat flattered. Is the noble Lord aware that everyone will, of course, abhor any action which will inconvenience and cause hardship to patients? But is the noble Lord aware too—and there is a degree of hypocrisy about people in public services not striking—that this situation has been caused by a regrettable lack of understanding of the poor pay of staff in the National Health Service? Is he further aware that under the Government's new scheme and new offer—taking into account that if they are in residence they will be facing increased charges—nurses will receive less than they receive at present? I have seen a porter's pay slip this week for £60 net. It is on the supplementary benefits scale. It is a disgrace, and that is the real reason why dedicated people are forced to reach a position which we all regret.

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, let me deal first with the nurses. The question of the increase in charges for nurses' accommodation, if there are to be any, is presently being considered by the Whitley Council. No agreement has been reached, but when it is, it will be an agreement between the two sides that make up the Whitley Council in that regard. But the kind of increases that are being considered in the Whitley Council would in no way absorb the increases, as the noble Lord is suggesting. Only about 10 per cent. of nurses actually live in the accommodation to which the noble Lord refers; the rest of them, of course, live in accommodation away from their hospitals, with their parents or whatever, and they, too, are no doubt experiencing increases of some sort.
As to the general question of the low pay of health service workers, of course there are some low-paid workers in the health service, but I suggest that the pay that they receive is very comparable with the pay received in other industries for parallel work. If there are any minor difficulties that need to be eradicated, they of course can be discussed in the Whitley Council. Taken all in all, we are making available some £400 million in respect of the present pay offer, which is a very substantial sum.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that, under existing law, it is open to the pickets to contend that they are entitled, in support of their own pay claim, not only to interfere with the due performance of the contracts for the supply of medical materials, but also to seek to secure that persons do not deliver these supplies? In that situation, would my noble friend the Minister not agree that where human life, human suffering and human wellbeing are put in hazard, there is a case for a revision of the law in this particular regard?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the present law, as I understand it—and I would want to stop short of offering your Lordships a definitive definition of the legal position—is that peaceful picketing at one's place of work is perfectly lawful. Of course, if pickets go beyond that and break the law, then that is a matter for the police in the pat titular circumstances prevailing. As for a review of the law, as my noble friend suggests, that is a rather profound question, if I may say so, which perhaps deserves more careful consideration than I can give on my feet at the moment.

§ Lord Jacques
My Lords, is the Minister aware that in a really civilised society there would be no strikes in the hospital service? When negotiations and conciliation could not settle the issue, arbitration would be the accepted order of the day. Is the Minister further aware that, by refusing arbitration, the Government themselves are largely responsible for the present position?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I would not accept that for a moment. Arbitration would, I presume, be some system—which is what the noble Lord is thinking—whereby some third party would call upon the Government to make more funds available for the purposes of the present offer. I have to tell your Lordships that there is no more money available and arbitration is not, therefore, an option.

§ Baroness Trumpington
My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that it is not merely the entry of medical supplies which is in difficulty, but because of picketing certain social services are having difficulty in getting equipment for the use of the disabled out of hospitals?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I am indeed aware of the difficulties which my noble friend describes. That is why I have asked that the action should be ended forthwith.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that if the Government had the courage to appoint an arbitrator, he would take full cognisance of the Government's view, because the trade unions believe that part of his remit ought to be to see that this sort of thing does not happen again? Is the Minister aware that, as regards this dispute, the Trades Union Congress issued a code of conduct accepted by the trade unions involved, which says that all fuel, oxygen, medical and vital supplies must not be interfered with? Is the Minister further aware that if he will supply the Confederation of Health Service Employees with details of what has been alleged in this Chamber this afternoon, they are quite prepared to give of their level best and to make visits by senior secretaries to the region concerned to see that the TUC's code of conduct in this dispute is fully adhered to? Would the noble Lord be prepared to let the confederation know the details, so that they can stop any abuses of the code of conduct?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I am aware of the fact that the trade unions have issued a code of conduct in this matter. The pity is that it has not always been 975 honoured. Emergency services have been withdrawn in some areas, notably, in Leicestershire; I think that there was a case in Lincoln and, indeed, in Liverpool.

§ Lord Wells-Pestell
My Lords, is the Minister aware that I cannot recall a single Question being put by noble Lords opposite when the consultants went on strike a few years ago?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, if we want to bandy across the Floor of the House the relative positions of our respective parties over the years, I would draw the noble Lord's attention to the present position of his party as compared with the position of mine at the time of the 1979 dispute.

§ Lord George-Brown
My Lords, since my general view on trade union and other behaviour is well known, I should like to ask the Minister whether he realises just how chillingly his answer on the question of arbitration struck people such as myself? He said, if I recall his exact words, that presumably an arbitrator would ask the Government to find more funds and that there are no more funds available, and so there is no point in having an arbitration. I ask the Minister to reflect on that. The point of an arbitrator is that he will weigh up the pros and the cons. He might just as easily come down on the other side as to come down on the side that the Minister assumed. That is my first point.
The second point is that if we are to avoid this type of situation in an essential, humanitarian public service, and if we are to rule out any form of solution other than the Government's predetermined one, then how is such a situation ever to be resolved? I know that the noble Lord says that he cannot think on his feet, which suggests to me that he thinks through the wrong part of his anatomy, but I would really ask him if he would go away and reflect upon what his answer really implies?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, on the question of avoiding this type of situation in the future, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that we do need to avoid this hassle every year in the futute. That is why my right honourable friend has initiated negotiations with the nurses to establish a machinery which we very much hope will be in place by next year to fulfil this function, and that is why we stand ready to have parallel negotiations with the other trade unions to achieve a similar machinery, if only they would come and talk to us about it.

§ Baroness Jeger
My Lords, has the Minister had time to look at the report of the Public Accounts Committee which was published today and which indicates that there are 1,100 beds in new hospitals which are empty, not because of industrial action, but because of lack of funds? Does not all this add up to the fact that the Government are not giving sufficient priority to a fundamental review of the need for financial changes in the National Health Service?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I agree that it is the case in times of extreme financial stringency as regards 976 this country that we have to set an order of priorities. The sort of problems which the noble Baroness describes are not always simply a result of shortage of funds. Sometimes they are an ordering of priorities. within the district health authority or within the regional health authority. I certainly look forward to the day when more funds can be made available to the health service. In the meantime, we are thinking of funds of something like £14,500 million next year lot the health service, which is a very substantial sum.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords—

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I hesitate to intervene but we have spent 29 minutes on three Questions. There is yet another one to go, and if your Lordships think it appropriate, I suggest that, despite the noble Lord, Lord Molloy's intervention, we ought to move on.