§ 2.45 p.m.
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the levels of redundancy payments in the National Health Service.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur)My Lords, the level of redundancy payments in the National Health Service depends upon the age and length of reckonable service of the officer concerned. Those under 40 years of age may claim up to a maximum of 30 weeks' pay, and this limit applies to those over the age of 50 who have at least five years' service. The maximum for others is 66 weeks' pay.
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this agreement which was hammered out by both sides of the negotiating table—the staff side and the official side—reflects great credit on the principle of joint negotiation and on the Whitley system in particular? Is the noble Lord further aware that there is a sad element? The increasing levels of redundancy in the National Health Service are now reflecting the same situation as in decaying industries where redundancy payments rose dramatically as their services dropped and unemployment increased. Will the noble Lord take account of that as a signal to the Government to look very carefully at their policies in future on the NHS?
§ Lord GlenarthurMy Lords, I am certainly grateful to the noble Lord for the first part of his supplementary question when he referred to the efforts of 236 both sides of the Whitley Councils. As regards the number of redundancies, which I believe is the line he was following, details were collected centrally only until March 1981. In each of the last two full years numbers were around 330 to 340, which is not as excessive as the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Wallace of CoslanyMy Lords, can the noble Lord advise the House of the total amount of redundancy payments and increased retirement pension payments involved as a result of the two reorganisations carried out by the present Government and their predecessors under Mr. Heath?
§ Lord GlenarthurMy Lords, I do not think that I can give all the information for which the noble Lord asks without notice; but I shall find out what the figures are and advise him. As regards any excessive cost on the premature retirement scheme, this figure is about £45 million. The report from the comptroller and auditor general says that the original estimates were understated and this is not, in fact, in dispute.
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the percentage figure which he quoted does not seem to be too high but when translated into the number of doctors, nurses and midwives in the National Health Service, it produces a figure of thousands? Would it not be possible, in so far as we have this good negotiating machinery which established the levels of the redundancy pay, for the same machinery to be used in seeking to bring some form of co-ordination in building the National Health Service rather than running it down?
§ Lord GlenarthurMy Lords, as I indicated in my answer to the noble Lord's earlier supplementary question, there is a difference between redundancies and premature retirements. The figures I gave him earlier were for redundancies. There were of course rather more for premature retirements. The number is 2,580. That greatly exceeds earlier estimates. But the regional health authorities, who were responsible for administering the premature retirement scheme. were the only bodies in a position to judge how many were needed.
Lord Wallace of CoslanyMy Lords, the noble Lord mentioned the figure of £45 million. I can hardly credit this. Is this the cost of reducing the National Health Service? The figure is astonishing because that amount would build about three hospitals, apart from extending services. It seems to be a staggering figure. Can the noble Lord confirm it?
§ Lord GlenarthurMy Lords, if the figure which I gave to the noble Lord is wrong I shall of course let him know; but I understand that that was the approximate cost of the reorganisation to which he refers.
§ Lord KilmarnockMy Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the figure of 2,580 redundancies that he mentioned falls within the 4,839 cuts which I believe the Government have agreed as their target?
§ Lord GlenarthurNo, my Lords, the figure of 2,580 is for premature retirements, and that followed reorganisation so it is not part of the figure to which the noble Lord referred.