Ambulance Service: Pay Dispute (Hansard, 8 November 1989)

The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)
My Lords, the charge that is made by the Metropolitan Police to the regional health authority for police officers who provide emergency cover is £15.45 per hour worked. The pay of a qualified ambulanceman or woman in London with effect from 1st April 1988, including London weighting, is £11,074 per annum.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. Does he agree that when the figures are worked out in detail it is much more expensive to employ the police than to let the ambulancemen do the job that they were trained to do? Is he further aware that only a couple of years ago there was parity among all the emergency services and the one that has dropped behind is the ambulance service? Is he further aware that the ambulancemen's representatives asked whether the issue could be taken to arbitration and proposed that the result of the arbitration should be binding on both sides? Was that not a sensible proposition to have made?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I shall endeavour to answer some of the noble Lord's questions. He asked whether it would be cheaper for the ambulancemen to do the job. He knows perfectly well that that is not the point at issue. It is that the ambulancemen, for reasons of their own, decided to remove an emergency service and because of the possible risk to life—

Noble Lords
Oh!

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, if the noble Lord will stop wagging his head and listen to the answer it will help. The emergency services were not available because of the action which the ambulancemen took. As a result of that life was at risk. As always, the police provide aid when there is a possibility of lives being at risk.
On the second point of whether ambulancemen's pay has fallen behind that of the other emergency services the answer is that the ambulancemen are employees of the National Health Service. Ninety five per cent. of those in the health services have already settled for an increase of around 6.5 per cent. That is the sum of money being offered at the moment for those outside London; it is 9.3 per cent. for those in London. Therefore the offer is in line with the other increases.

§ Lord Ennals
My Lords, is not the point at issue that the Government are expecting ambulancemen to accept a 6.5 per cent. offer when much greater figures have been settled for the other emergency services such as the fire services and the police, and indeed for Members of another place? Why is the Secretary of State, and indeed the noble Earl, adopting such a confrontational attitude?

Noble Lords
Oh!

§ Lord Ennals
It is indeed a confrontational attitude to a group of people who are dedicated, skilled professionals but at the same time very low paid. Why does the Minister not seek a settlement rather than confrontation? Why does he not seek arbitration?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, the ambulancemen are part of the National Health Service. Ninety five per cent. of those in the health service have accepted a settlement of around 6.5 per cent.; that is, 100 per cent. Of those who have settled their claims. It is within that context that the ambulance service is considered. The noble Lord asks why the ambulancemen are treated differently from the firemen and the police, but he knows perfectly well that the police are subjected to brawls and fights, personal risk and so on. One really cannot take a comparison with the responsibilities of the police and the fire service. It is frankly like discussing Tuesday afternoon at Piccadilly Circus. The two matters are separate.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, does the Minister agree that consideration might now be given to some independent mandatory arbitral 709 machinery being set up for the essential services, and that official action in those essential services should therefore be outlawed? Furthermore, does he agree that no comparison whatever can be drawn between strike action over pay with regard to the police, who do not strike, and ambulancemen who do?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend on the last point. The police have a no-strike agreement which has been observed and which is not prevalent elsewhere. We are in danger of trying to dicuss the issues at risk, the issues of pay, across the Floor of the House. That is undesirable. I was asked a question on the relationship between the pay of the police and the ambulancemen. I have explained that. I would make only this point. The reason that the police, and now the Army, may be involved, is in order to prevent the risk to life.

§ Lord Rochester
My Lords, it is intolerable that ambulance workers should inflict suffering on the community through industrial action or be constrained by unwillingness to take it. Therefore, is not the way out for the Government to provide sufficient resources to enable their pay to be determined fairly under a non-strike agreement either by arbitration or through the award of a comparability study?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, that is a possibility which can be considered. However, while an emergency service is not available the Government must ensure that there is back-up service. For that reason we have invited the police and the Army to help.

§ Baroness Nicol
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the letter issued in 1978 from the office of the Leader of the Opposition, then Mrs. Margaret Thatcher? She said that the three emergency services should be taken outside the arena of public squabbling over pay and should have firm and automatic links to national pay rises. Are we to understand that the Prime Minister has now changed her mind, or is this another example of disagreement within the Cabinet?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, perhaps I can remind the noble Baroness of what happened one year later when her Government were in power. They appointed Professor Clegg—

A noble Lord
Answer the question!

Earl Ferrers
I beg your pardon. My Lords, if noble Lords will be patient I shall try to explain what happened. In 1979 Professor Clegg was appointed by the then Labour Government. He rejected a link between the pay of the police and the ambulance workers because, as he said —and it is now a fact —only 10 per cent. of ambulance workers' time is spent on emergency work.

§ Lord Ennals
My Lords, is it not most unfair of the Minister to refer to strike action? No strike action is being taken by these men. Is it not also most unfair of him to suggest that any ambulance workers have 710 refused to undertake emergency action? None of them has refused to undertake emergency action. Is this really the way to deal with the dispute?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, it is not helpful to have this kind of conversation across the Floor of the House. I have been asked various questions and I have answered them, but I am anxious not to become involved with the details of a current financial dispute.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the "invitation" to the police and the soldiers, as he described it, was not issued as such? Is he also aware that if it were issued in terms of an invitation rather than an order there would be few acceptances?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, the noble Lord knows perfectly well that he is splitting hairs. When the emergency services are not available it is up to the Government to take the necessary action. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health discussed the matter with his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence and they decided that it would be appropriate to ask the Army to help.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the issue could be settled before midnight tonight if the Government accepted the ambulancemen's request that the matter should go to arbitration, which should be binding? Will he also look into the fact that last night a number of ambulancemen who wanted to answer emergency calls and who had been lambasted by the press found that the keys to their ambulances had been removed? Will the Minister discover who gave that appalling order? Above all, do the Government not agree that an agreement to binding arbitration would stop the trouble before midnight tonight?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, all those matters will be considered by the Government because they are anxious to see the situation come to an end. An offer has been made of 9.3 per cent. in London and 6.5 per cent. elsewhere. All the National Health Service employees who have settled have done so around that figure.