To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement outlining the legal provisions relating to the abolition of the General Whitley Council appeals machinery as set out in section 32 of the General Whitley Council;
(2) if he will explain the reasons for the abolition of the General Whitley Council appeals machinery; and what consultations he has had with Whitley Council representatives before deciding to do so;
(3) if he will set out the machinery he proposes to put in place of the provisions now revoked as a result of his abolition of section 32 of the General Whitley Council.
The new conditions provide for employing authorities to introduce more straightforward local procedures after consultation with staff and local staff representatives.Section 32 of the General Whitley Council provisions was seen increasingly as a cumbersome and ineffective way of handling differences of opinion between employing authorities and individual members of staff. Individual grievances which were not resolved at employing authority level were referred to a second level of appeal and, if again unresolved, to a third national level of appeal. There was no provision which required such appeals—which could be taken forward only by a professional organisation or trade union representing an aggrieved employee—to be finally resolved, and so many cases, some of which took a year or more to go through the system, were never resolved. This system did little to foster good industrial relations locally.The management side of the General Whitley Council were in negotiations with the staff side for about four years to change the procedures until August 1991 when the talks broke down.In the light of lack of progress the existing agreement was revoked and replaced by new conditions, using powers in paragraph 10 of schedule 5 of the National Health Services Act 1977 and regulations 3 and 4 of the National Health Service (Remuneration and Conditions of Service) Regulations 1991.The new machinery is as follows:
Procedure for settling differences about conditions of service