NHS: Re-employment of Doctors (Hansard, 9 May 1984)

§ Lord Ennals
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur)
My Lords, 39 doctors who had been prematurely retired under the arrangements for premature retirement on organisational change have been re-employed in the National Health Service. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has expressed concern over the re-employment of any doctor who has received substantial compensation and has written to regional health authority chairmen asking them to review all existing cases of re-employment and to seek ministerial approval for any future proposal to re-employ.
Of the 39 doctors, 19 have already left the service, or will do so shortly. Regional chairmen have been asked to terminate the employment of a further 12, and inquiries are still proceeding on three. The employment of the remaining five doctors can be justified on the individual circumstances of each case. They will be allowed to continue until successor arrangements can be made, or until the completion of a specific task for which they were appointed.

§ Lord Ennals
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am most grateful to him for his detailed Answer and for the concern that is being shown by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State? Can he answer for me three questions? First, how much was paid in all in redundancy payments? Secondly, if these doctors were redundant, how was it that there were posts to which they could then be appointed? Thirdly, at a time when the National Health Service is facing such a serious cash crisis, how can the National Health Service tolerate this kind of expenditure at taxpayers' expense?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's last supplementary question, I would say the very fact that my right honourable friend is taking the steps that he is indicates his concern about precisely that point. So far as payment is concerned, information is not available about payments to individual doctors or specifically to those who have re-entered National Health Service employment. By 31st October 1983 a total of 103 doctors had been retired 916 prematurely, as a result of the 1982 restructuring, and had been awarded an average lump sum of £27,973 and an average annual pension of £10,285.

§ Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether additional cost would have been involved in the leaving of the 19 doctors and the termination of the employment of the 12 to whom he referred?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot tell my noble friend what additional costs would be incurred in each case, but I shall try to find out and let her know.

§ Lord Kilmarnock
My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that the matter referred to in the Question is of particular concern, in view of the fact that the BMA calculates that there are 2,000 unemployed doctors, each of whom has been trained at a cost of about £95,000, and that, in these circumstances, it is particularly inappropriate to re-employ doctors who have taken redundancy payments?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, not for the first time have I answered questions on the employment level of doctors. The fact is that the levels of employment to which the noble Lord refers have not been justified. I referred earlier to further surveys that are being carried out to look into the matter.

§ Lord Kilmarnock
My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that the Government's own figure in September 1982 was 1,418?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper relates to re-employment. I do not think that it would be particularly profitable to follow the line of the noble Lord's argument.

§ Lord Leatherland
My Lords, can the noble Lord give your Lordships any idea of whether the Government are likely to extend this principle, with a view to granting redundancy pay of £20,000 to Members of this noble House?

§ Lord Ennals
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am a little surprised that he could not give me the total figure for redundancy payments? Is he aware that my rapid mental arithmetic, for which I take little credit, suggests that almost £3 million was spent in terms of redundancy payments and pensions at that time, even if one takes as a basis only a couple of years? Is this not really a rather serious situation? Is he satisfied that the action that the Secretary of State is now taking will put a stop to what one can only describe as, I think, sleight of hand behaviour by doctors who really ought to know better?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I sincerly hope that it will. But the fact is that the payments were made under the remuneration and conditions of service regulations which, as the noble Lord will know, are negotiatied by the General Whitley Council and approved by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The regulations governing the payments provide for the abatement or cessation of pension payments if a 917 combination of the pension and the current National Health Service salary exceeds the salary level before retirement. But there is no evidence that anyone has received any payment to which he is not entitled.

§ Lord Ennals
My Lords, I think that the noble Lord misunderstands me; indeed, I ask him whether he misunderstands me. The complaint that I have raised with him is not that people are paid redundancy payments, or that they receive pensions towards which they have probably contributed during their service. Is he not aware that the real question that I asked and which, I am certain, causes concern throughout the country, as well as throughout the House, is whether such people should then be re-appointed to well-paid posts within the National Health Service? Is the noble Lord not aware—and, certainly, his right honourable friend the Secretary of State must be aware—that that is really a scandalous situation?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord. The fact is that my right honourable friend has taken the action that I have described, which I think indicates that he is just as concerned as is the noble Lord.

§ Lord Segal
My Lords, is this small number likely to be further reduced when we have heard the noble Lord's reply to the second Question on the Order Paper.

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I think it might be best if we wait for the second Question before I answer that point.