NHS: Disputes Procedure (Hansard, 23 November 1982)

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

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, we have made it clear that one of the advantages of the two-year settlement that we have proposed—on which the staff groups are now consulting their members—is that it gives time to seek new ways of determining pay and avoiding disputes. In the case of nurses and professions allied to medicine we have proposed the establishment of a review body to advise on pay from 1st April 1984. For other groups of staff we have proposed that discussions about improved long-term pay arrangements start immediately on the conclusion of negotiations in the Whitley Councils on the current pay offers.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for that reply, particularly the last part of it. May I ask him whether he is aware that there is still a great deal of bitterness and rancour felt by tens of thousands of employees of our National Health Service simply because of this issue? Is he aware that in other parts of public industry and private industry there exist national arbitration boards, and that when the Whitley system in these other industries reaches stalemate there is an agreement that such matters should be referred to the national arbitration board by either side, and their decision is binding? Is the noble Lord not aware that if this had been the situation in the National Health Service the bitterness and rancour and all the bad feeling that now exists need not have occurred? Is my proposal, therefore, not at least worthy of consideration?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, no doubt if we had conceded the original unrealistic pay claim a lot of the industrial action would have been avoided. But the Government cannot subcontract their obligation—and it is an obligation—to determine the sum of money available for pay purposes within the health service. That is what we did, and it is for the Whitley Councils to determine the allocation of those funds.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that it had nothing to do with the statement of the Government that they could not accede to the present request of Britain's nurses and ancillary workers? Would the noble Lord not agree that when you have such a situation, then, instead of a massive wedge being driven between one side and the other, there ought to be a system of conciliation, which is traditional within British industry and could well be of great service to the National Health Service in the future?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I do not think it would be of service to the NHS to provide unlimited funds for the purposes the noble Lord describes. It is the Government's duty to decide the total sum of money available for this purpose. We cannot abrogate or subcontract that duty in the way that the noble Lord asks.

§ Lord Jacques
My Lords, is the Minister aware that every employer could take that view and say, "I am going to decide and nobody else"? That is what it amounts to. Is he further aware that the Government as the ultimate employer have a responsibility for the industrial relations in those departments and activities which they control? Is he further aware that one of the best things you can do to prevent unrest is to have proper systems of conciliation and arbitration?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the conduct of industrial relations in the health service is not in the first instance a matter for the Government; it is a matter for the regional and district health authorities. But I cannot get away from what I have been saying to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. The Government really do have a responsibility for determining the total sum of money available for these purposes, as indeed does any responsible employer.

§ Lord Blyton
My Lords, as the noble Lord has stated that the health workers' claim was unrealistic, can he say whether the 15 per cent. increase given to chairmen in the nationalised industries was realistic?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I have explained in the past the distinction between the health service workers and some of the other groups of workers to which the noble Lord draws my attention. Of course, the 12 per cent. claim of the National Health Service workers was not actually 12 per cent. because they were asking for increased holidays and reduced working hours at the same time. Their real claim was around 20 per cent.

§ Lord Rochester
My Lords, would the Government still feel the same about the findings of an arbitration body if it were possible for the Government in the last resort, with the consent of both Houses of Parliament, to overturn the findings of any arbitration body?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, as I say, it is for the Government to determine these matters—the total sums of money available; we have, as the noble Lord knows, proposed a review body for the nurses and for the professions allied to medicine, where a procedure not too far removed from what the noble Lord proposes would doubtless take effect.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that when matters have been referred to existing national arbitration boards they have taken full cognisance of the views of both sides? I do not know when there has been a single instance in which the national arbitration boards for various industries—for example, the railway industry—have conceded the whole point of the employers or the whole point of the employees. Is the noble Lord not aware that people who comprise these national arbitration boards in our country today are not abysmally stupid people—they 795 recognise the facts? They have made a great contribution to easing difficult situations. Would the noble Lord not agree that this might help when we establish a new system for our National Health Service?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, as I understand it, the railway tribunal's findings are not binding on the railways board. In any event, the railways board, and, say, the National Coal Board are different altogether in kind from the National Health Service because they are trading enterprises.