House of Lords
Tuesday, 25th June 2002.
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St Albans.
Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts
National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act
Land at Palace Avenue, Kensington (Acquisition of Freehold) Act.
Civil Service: Equal Opportunities
Baroness Gould of Potternewton asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they are satisfied with their progress towards achieving equal pay and equality of opportunity in the Civil Service.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, the Government have committed all departments and agencies to undertake an equal pay review and to prepare any necessary action plans by April 2003. Departments and agencies are at various stages of reviewing their pay systems. We are making good progress with equality of opportunity in the Civil Service, with increasing numbers of women, ethnic minority and disabled staff at all levels, including the senior Civil Service.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that detailed Answer. I am given to understand that in response to a survey among staff on Civil Service diversity, which was conducted sometime last year, more than half of those who replied did not believe that promotion policies operated fairly or were based on individual merit, and were particularly to the detriment of women and ethnic minorities. Given that finding, can the Minister indicate whether there are any plans to undertake a skills and qualifications audit of Civil Service staff in order to ensure that promotion prospects are felt to be fair and based purely on the merits of candidates?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the Civil Service takes very seriously the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness and others. We are not clear about what is to be gained by having information on the skills and qualifications of around half a million staff. We
believe that it is most important that departments and agencies operate a system of open advertising of vacancies, where staff are free to put themselves forward and to demonstrate how their skills and experience are relevant to the post.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, in view of the Minister's reply to the Question of my noble friend Lady Gould, can he explain why women whose jobs have been rated as of equal value to those of men—women in administrative work and men in technical work whose jobs have been rated as of equal value—are paid less? Can he explain why?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, taking that point across the economy as a whole, the gender pay gap was assessed and explained by the Equal Opportunities Commission task force as arising through, yes, unfair—and, indeed, sometimes unlawful—discrimination in pay systems; the impact of the different patterns of male and female careers; and occupational segregation of the workforce. The task force estimated that up to half of the gap was caused by discrimination in pay systems. But government departments are leading by example in carrying out pay reviews, which are to be completed by April 2003. Research by the trade union Amicus suggests that only 1 per cent of private sector employers have similar plans.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, does the Minister agree that inability to make progression in a service amounts to a form of unequal pay? Does he recognise that there are complaints from middle rank civil servants who might expect to progress well but who, as women, are encouraged to take time off when they are having a child or to work part time, and then find it very difficult indeed to get back into full- time work within the same job or the same kind of job? Will any of the units established under the recent reforms announced by Sir Andrew Turnbull turn their attention towards ensuring that the Government's targets for progression of women within the Civil Service are achieved?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, in regard to the final part of the noble Baroness's question, there will be a unit, led by Alice Perkins, which will attend to these issues with the same kind of commitment as has been displayed in recent times. The targets for women within the workforce were from a 1998 baseline of around 18 per cent of women in the senior Civil Service. By October last year that figure had gone up from 18 per cent to more than 25 per cent. I am pleased to say that we now have four women Permanent Secretaries and that the proportion of women recommended for appointment to the fast stream has increased almost to parity with men.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, does the Minister recall the Government's target in respect of appointments to public bodies, whether paid or unpaid, that, by 2005, 45 to 50 per cent of such
positions should be filled by women? Can the Minister assure the House that these targets are being applied, in particular, to the chairmanship, deputy chairmanship and chief executive positions of all such appointments?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I cannot reply to that point in detail as it is wide of the Question on the Order Paper. I shall inquire into the matter and ensure that my government colleagues are made aware of the concern.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, would not the Minister's assurances to noble Baronesses on all sides of the House carry more weight were it not for the fact that, while other employers pay women an average of 20 per cent less than they do men—which is bad enough—the Government pay their women employees 28 per cent less, which is truly appalling?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the equal opportunities survey that I mentioned gave a figure of 18 per cent. The trade union survey quoted by the noble Lord cited 28 per cent, but the bases of the two surveys were very different. The survey indicating a figure of 28 per cent conflated full-time and part-time employees and was therefore not comparable.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, it is helpful to hear the Minister tell us that we had four female Permanent Under-Secretaries. But does he recall that Dame Evelyn Sharp was a Permanent Under-Secretary when Richard Crossman was Minister for Housing?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I do indeed recall that. I also recall that Dame Evelyn moved over to television and kept us under a very strict regime.
Immigration: Fast-track System
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
- How many immigrants have been admitted to the United Kingdom this year under the new fast-track system for those with special skills and, of these, how many have been admitted to fill National Health Service posts.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, 338 applications for the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme have been successful up to mid-June from a total of 831 considered; 184 successful applications were from individuals already in the United Kingdom. As no work permit is required prior to entry, applicants from overseas are not admitted to the UK to fill vacancies, but rather to look for work. The scheme has also been
designed to allow priority applications from general practitioners. We have had three successful priority applications as of 12th June.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Having studied the Home Office website today, I am slightly puzzled. It provides a seven-page application form for those wanting to come to this country under the fast-track procedure. It indicates that people must be coming from overseas. A similar website set up by the National Health Service and covering the international recruitment of doctors also makes clear that they must come from overseas. Furthermore, the National Health Service website states that a work permit must be obtained; whereas the Home Office website—I congratulate the Minister on the fact that it has received a Plain English Campaign award, which is good news—refers specifically to doctors. If someone wants to take up a post in this country and if a health authority needs doctors urgently, which is the quicker way to obtain entry—through the work permit system or through the new fast-track system?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, both appear to be working well. Under the work permit system, which is the traditional route, an NHS employer signals that it is looking for doctors or other skilled professionals. To date, 207 doctors have been granted work permits by that route, and many more are en train from Spain and Germany. Some 21,000 nurses have also been issued with work permits.
The Highly Skilled Migrant Programme, which is very new—it has been running for only four months—is an alternative route of entry for a highly skilled medical professional such as a GP. The benefit is that applicants can come into the UK without having been offered a job by an NHS employer. They would then have a period of time to obtain employment to qualify them to continue with work permit status in the UK. Both routes are possible. The work permit route is the more traditional one, but the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme has certain advantages, as I have indicated.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page