|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the letter, as the noble Baroness said, has only just been received by health authorities and trusts. We are encouraging trusts and health authorities to make their offers quickly. The majority which have made offers have made them at around 3 per cent. It is up to local management to decide the level of local pay.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, while accepting that nurses' pay is a sensitive issue and one that has great popular support, does my noble friend agree that it is possible that Members of the party opposite, suffering from an understandable lapse of memory because it is a long time since they were in office, have forgotten what happened when they were in office?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend is referring to the fact that as regards real term pay settlements, the Labour Party reducedcutnurses' pay by 3 per cent. whereas this Government have increased it by 51 per cent.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, was it not inevitable, once the changes in the structure of the National Health Service were made, that such confusion would arise? Is this not an issue on which there ought to be a national pay policy for the National Health Service?
Baroness Cumberlege: No, my Lords. I have been taught that when in charge, ponder; when in trouble, delegate; when in doubt, mumble. There is no confusion. I shall not mumble on this occasion. I am absolutely convinced, as are Her Majesty's Government, that the National Health Service can no longer live in
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does that mean that we are now in a situation in which market forces and the efficiency of the administration determine nurses' pay rather than their training, ability and efficiency? If that is so, we really are going down a very difficult and wrong road.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the whole purpose of local pay is that local managers should consider not only the recruitment possibilities for their area, living costs, travel costs and rent costs, but also the skills and abilities of the staff whom they employ. Only last week an article in the Guardian said that an element of local pay for nurses makes good sense. We believe that. We believe that it should mean that nurses should be paid more in parts of the country where those costs are higher. That was a view confirmed also in the Evening Standard and the Economist. Those people who are enlightened recognise that the future must lie with local pay.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the arrangements which have been the subject of our exchanges this afternoon were the result of the recommendation of the independent review body? They are not the result of a decision by the Government, other than the Government very properly accepting without reservation or amendment the extremely clear recommendations put to them by the independent review body. I believe that that body was generally and broadly accepted as good when it was set up some years ago.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. The review body was set up in 1983. It was fought for extremely hard by the nurses, midwives and health visitors who wanted an independent review body. The review body has made those recommendations. Indeed, over the past 11 years since the Government established the body, nurses' pay has risen faster than earnings in the economy as a whole. It is disappointing that on the one occasion on which the review body recommends local pay, it is not received warmly by those nurses whom it is intended to help.
Lord Desai: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell the House which of the four criteriafair, affordable, simple and understandableare not met by the current offer, which has made the nurses so unhappy?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, one must recognise that those who are opposing this measure are those who, in the past, have had the power, as trade unions, to negotiate nationally. We believe that that time should come to an end now. It is relevant that the employers of those staff should take into consideration all the local factors. I can understand the RCN and
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I agree with a great deal of what the noble Baroness says about local organisation and local agreements. However, problems arise when those local agreements are not accepted or when they break down. As UNISON has pointed out, local agreements are good but there appears to be nowhere to turn to if those agreements are not adhered to or cannot be achieved.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, if nurses or other members of staff feel that they are not receiving a fair deal, there is a strict legal system to which they can appeal in terms of employment law and so on. It is interesting to note that nurses who are members of UNISON are opposing this measure and yet for 40 per cent. of its staff who are not nurses, UNISON is going along with local pay. Indeed, the RCN and UNISON are putting a considerable amount of investment into their local stewards to negotiate local pay. Therefore, they recognise that it will come and that it is up to them to consider the offers that are being made and to do the very best for their members.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, perhaps I may return to my original Question about what the Government will do if local pay is not agreed. If the Government are content for there to be substantial agreements at local level which do not meet the 3 per cent. figure, why is it that Mr. Jarrold, in his letter to local executives, wroteand I believe that I have this correctly:
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as I explained earlier to the noble Baroness, that letter was sent out as recently as 11th April and still has to be received and considered. Of course, a 1 per cent. increase in pay across the board will be awarded to all nurses, midwives and health visitors. The other 2 per cent. is a matter for local negotiation. The offers are on the table and local organisations must decide whether or not to take up those offers.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Friday 28th April for the purpose of taking the Finance Bill through its remaining stages that day.(Viscount Cranborne.)
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am aware, as the House will be, that my noble friend has a long-standing interest in these matters. Perhaps I should point out that the last occasion on which consideration of a Finance Bill was taken over two days was as long ago as the 1977-78 Session. Therefore, I suggest to my noble friend that taking the Finance Bill on one day in your Lordships' House is a long established practice.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, it is really too bad that your Lordships should be faced with this situation for the second year running. Once again, the most important Bill of the yearthis year running to 377 pagesis to be dealt with on a Friday at a time when your Lordships are not normally sitting.
Your Lordships' membership includes five former Chancellors of the Exchequer, four former Chief Secretaries, a great many past senior officials of the Treasury and three former Governors of the Bank of England. One could go on almost indefinitely. No other deliberative assembly in the world can match your Lordships' House in judgment, experience and knowledge of such matters. Therefore, your Lordships are in a full position to respond to the summons which is issued by our Sovereign to advise and consent and to give counsel, not merely to nod through a measure of this sort on a Friday at a time when the House is not normally sitting.
There are convenient occasions on which all that expertise can be made available; for example, as regards the Consolidated Fund Bills and the Finance Bill, above all. But your Lordships are consistently refused the opportunity to use the Consolidated Fund Bills for their proper purpose on the grounds that at any rate the No. 2 Bill coincides approximately with the Finance Bill. That excuse goes utterly by the board when the Finance Bill is taken on a Friday, as it was last year and will be again this year.
Last year it was debated on the Friday before an English Bank Holiday; this year it will be debated on a Friday before a Scottish Bank Holiday. Obviously, most Members of your Lordships' House will have made arrangements in advance which preclude their intervention next Friday. I believe that your Lordships will want at least two assurances: first, that this will not become an annual event; and, secondly, that the Procedure Committee will, once again, look seriously at the question of debating the Consolidated Fund Bill in the light of the fact that the Finance Bill treated in this way is no sort of alternative.
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page