ADMISSION TO REGISTER (Hansard, 7 February 1979)

§ Mr. Moyle
I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 9, line 8, after 'Kingdom', insert 'or elsewhere'.
This amendment is aimed at clarifying an amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) in Committee which I accepted in principle, so as to make crystal clear the conditions under which people from overseas could be accepted for registration in this country. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend's amendment was technically defective because it omitted the words "or elsewhere". This amendment puts the position right.

§ Mr. Powell
I hope that I can persuade the Minister to withdraw the amendment, and I also hope that in so doing I shall not incur the displeasure of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt).
I believe that in this amendment the Minister is perpetrating a nonsense. If we construe the subsection, it can be seen that we are dealing with a person who elsewhere than in the United Kingdom has undergone training which either is or is not recognised as up to the required standards.
In the second case the person concerned may be required to undergo additional training—presumably training to bring him up to the required standard. But if we insert the words "or elsewhere" we get a nonsense. If the person concerned has additional training elsewhere than in the United Kingdom, he comes under subsection (3)(c)(i), because elsewhere than in the United Kingdom he has undergone training. It does not envisage training all of a heap, but training in total which is of a standard necessary to bring him up to the required level.
I suggest that the Minister was right the first time and that the insertion of the words "or elsewhere" produces not merely a tautology but an inherent contradiction. I hope that the Minister will agree to have this examined in a place where they are even better than we are in dealing with points of drafting.

§ Mr. Moyle
I shall not agree to withdraw the amendment at this stage but, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's comments, I shall brood on his remarks and see whether we can remove the amendment in another place.

§ Mr. Molloy
Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister, when he takes that step, will refresh his memory about the debates we had on this subject in Committee. I am sure that he agrees that this is a vitally important matter.

§ Mr. Pavitt
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) has taken the words out of my mouth. I shall not weary the House by repeating the arguments advanced in Committee. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will try to deal with the concern which has been expressed as a result of the problems that occur when Commonwealth workers, who have had a certain amount of experience overseas, come to this country. I invite my right hon. Friend to read once again the arguments that were put forward on this topic in Committee.

§ Mr. Moyle
I take the point made by my hon. Friends, but, as I understand it, there is no difference in principle between my hon. Friends and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). This is merely a matter of drafting. We are seeking to ensure that any additional training that is necessary can be undertaken in the United Kingdom or before the person comes here—probably in a Commonwealth country. It is a matter of finding the appropriate words to express that concept.

§ Mr. Moyle
I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 9, line 10, leave out subsection (4) and insert— '(4) In the case of an applicant within subsection (3)(b) or (c), the rules may either—

(a) make it an additional condition of his being registered that he has the necessary knowledge of English; or

(b) requires him to have that knowledge within a period specified by the rules (failing which his registration will lapse at the end of the period).'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this we may take Government amendment No. 37

§ Mr. Moyle
There was an interesting debate during the seventh sitting of the Standing Committee on the question of nurses who come from abroad and apply for registration. Three amendments were tabled by the Opposition, which were then amendments Nos. 94, 89 and 96. They were aimed at restricting the registration and clinical responsibilities of such nurses until those concerned were able to satisfy the registration authorities that the applicants had a satisfactory knowledge of English.
I have decided to accept the first two amendments in principle, so that it will be crystal clear to those who read this legislation that nurses will be tested for knowledge of English. That was always our intention, but the Committee did not feel that this was sufficiently clearly expressed because it was expressed in a technical way in relation to further amendments. I have recast the Opposition amendments in ways that the parliamentary draftsman finds more acceptable. I have already explained that temporary registration is not a technique that I favour in meeting this problem.
I should make clear that, independently of the Bill, I intend to introduce an Order in Council later this year to amend the Nurses Act to conform with these amendments and to assimilate nursing in pursuance of our Community obligation under directives 77/452/EEC and 77/453/EEC. The order will be laid in draft and be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, as was desired by the Committee. So there will inevitably be a full opportunity for parliamentary debate on the detailed provisions. I hope that these arrangements are satisfactory to the House and that the amendments will be accepted.

§ Dr. Vaughan
As the Minister knows, we felt most strongly that it would be wrong if nurses were able to work in this country without an adequate grasp of English. We are glad that the Minister not only agreed in Committee but has now come forward with this preferable wording, which we support.