| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, how many professionals entering the country under these schemes have come from Muslim countries? Is my noble friend aware of allegations that certain entrants of south Asian origin are being discriminated against because their standard of English is not considered to be good enough, while others from European countries whose English is even poorer have been allowed to come in? Can my noble friend clarify the position?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I do not have the figures on the proportion from the Indian Sub-continent or from Asia more generally. Clearly, for good reasons, there are processes for ensuring that people can communicate effectively with patients if they are entering NHS employment. Furthermore, before an NHS trust recruits doctors or nurses from certain areas, including Asia, the Caribbean and Africa, there
is a screening process to try to ensure that we do not denude developing countries of scarce medical staff should they need them. I note the noble Baroness's further point and I shall look into it.
Lord Chan: My Lords, following on from what the Minister said, does he agree that refugees in the United Kingdom with medical qualifications should be helped to upgrade their skills in order to practise in the National Health Service?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I certainly agree that part of the NHS strategy, on which I seem to be answering questions this afternoon, is about upskilling virtually all employees in the organisation, hence the considerable investment in training going in for nurses and doctors. We are also trying to ensure that as much work as possible is delegated downwards so that those skills are used more generally. I have nothing to add apart from my general endorsement of that approach.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, will the Minister clarify part of his Answer to my noble friend? He said that the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme and the fast track applied to medical staff such as doctors. Has the Minister seen the form which, my noble friend tells me, states that the 50 points that can be awarded for a professional qualification apply only for the GMC qualification—that is, for a doctor? Does that mean that the only medical staff covered by the scheme are doctors and that dentists and other health professionals are not within it?
Lord Filkin: No, my Lords. As the noble Baroness clearly said, an element of the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme gives GPs 50 automatic points if they qualify to practise as a GP in the United Kingdom, for reasons that one can understand. Other highly skilled professionals, including consultants or research professionals, could apply under the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme. They would not qualify for the automatic 50 points, but they might well qualify because they had a doctorate, a particular relevant international qualification or other expertise or because they were highly paid. There is some dreadful points system that awards so many points for particular skills and experience to demonstrate that a person is highly skilled. If a person has sufficient points, they get entry to the UK and can then pick up a job. Others could get in, although without the 50-point bonus.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that under the Treaty of Rome, doctors and other registered healthcare professionals, such as dentists, may get full registration in the United Kingdom with the General Medical Council and the other statutory regulatory bodies? Under that treaty it is not possible to impose a language test on those coming in from the European Union. However, it was agreed many years ago that it was perfectly proper for National Health Service employing authorities to invite such individuals to take a language test before
being employed in the NHS. To what extent are the NHS employing authorities seeking that type of testing?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, from recollection, what the noble Lord has said sounds correct. If there is an error in it, I shall drop him a note qualifying it. I do not know to what extent NHS trusts are applying the language test. I could speculate that if they thought there was any doubt when they interviewed somebody, they might follow that through with some further testing. I shall ask the Department of Health and we will correspond directly on that.
Farm Incomes
2.53 p.m.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What plans they have to raise family farm incomes above the national minimum wage.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government recognise the economic problems facing British farming and we will work in partnership with the industry to help it meet the challenges that it faces. In the autumn we intend to publish a strategy for sustainable food and farming in England, which will build on the valuable work of Sir Don Curry's policy commission. Devolved administrations are also pursuing their own strategies.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Will he acknowledge that the national minimum wage now stands at £8,100 per annum and that the figures just published for the year ending 2001 show that the average net income for all UK hill beef and sheep farms was £4,000—half the national minimum wage? The average income for all farms in the UK was £5,000. That is the difference between £4.10 an hour on the national minimum wage and £2 an hour for family farms. Is not that an intolerable situation? Families cannot be sustained on farms any more. What will the Minister do urgently to raise incomes above the national minimum wage for farmers and their families? Will he also legislate to make it illegal for supermarkets to sell farm produce at below the cost of production?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the position of the incomes of many of Britain's farmers is very worrying and leads to some of the consequences that the noble Lord referred to. However, a direct correlation with the minimum wage is not appropriate, as the income is in part a wage and in part a self-employed income and is profit rather than gross wage, to which the minimum wage figure applies. I do not think that there is a direct read-across. Moreover, it is not the Government's responsibility to determine the incomes of the workforce, self-employed or employed. We are attempting to provide a framework for the recovery of
farming that will enable profit to come back into farming over the medium term. We shall not intervene directly on the income front.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that overall farm incomes are now at their lowest level in real terms since 1975 and in money terms have fallen by 71 per cent since 1995? At the same time, British agriculture receives more subsidy than the rest of British industry put together. Is there not something fundamentally wrong with our system of agricultural support?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is absolutely right. I welcome my noble friend's intervention in the debate. He has remained silent on agricultural matters for far too long. We recognise that there is a fundamental problem with the common agricultural policy, which not only does not benefit the taxpayer and the consumer, but also is of detriment to farmers and has for many years given the wrong signals to farmers. It has not supported their incomes, the kind of production that consumers want or the environment. That is why we are proposing a positive programme of reform for the common agricultural policy. We hope to see a proposal from Commissioner Fischler next month that will introduce some radical reforms through the mid-term review. Unless we alter the direction of the common agricultural policy, some of these problems will continue to affect British and European farming.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, the Minister said that he would be publishing a reply to the Curry report, but I did not hear him say when he would do that. The Government certainly cannot be responsible for the incomes of individual farmers, but he knows very well from the present situation that we are at a critical moment. Many people will look at this year's harvest and the outcome of this year's accounts after the end of foot and mouth and may then make a final decision on whether to stay in agriculture. The Government will certainly have to face the consequences of that, even if they do not get into the issues of individual incomes.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Curry commission rightly pointed out that some fundamental changes are needed in farming. That will inevitably involve some restructuring of farming and some refocus of farm production. Many in the industry will have to take some painful decisions. We are trying to establish within the food chain as a whole a viable medium-term framework under which money will get back into farming and farmers will be producing closer to the demand from consumers. We have already taken some steps following the Curry report to put in place a structure that will help farming in the rest of the food chain. We have also said how we want to change the nature of regulation on farming, which at times is too great a burden on many of Britain's farmers. That is already beginning to fall into place. Following the public spending review, we will be able to establish a
three-year programme of expenditure in support of the modernisation of farming to which the Government are committed.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |