The debate about medical professionals within the NHS and their command of English is a current debate which stems back to the tragic case of pensioner David Gray who died after being given a lethal dose of diamorphine by a doctor, Daniel Ubani, a German of Nigerian origin with limited English, who was on his first shift working in the UK.
There is concern that, far from tightening up the rules so that such mistakes cannot occur again, the European Union wants to ban any idea of English tests before staff can work in the UK because they would amount to a “restraint of free movement” for workers. The EU proposes that they can only be tested on their English if it is proven that they have endangered patient care and there has been doubt cast about their “sufficient language knowledge”.
Not surprisingly, the General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council along with royal colleges representing doctors, surgeons and nurses all say that this puts patients at serious risk. They say that, while all non-EU workers have to undergo strict English exams, they are not allowed to do the same for EU nationals.
The waters are muddied further by health secretary Andrew Lansley’s assertion that employers do have the right to check any staff member’s language skills. That may be the policy of the government but doesn’t the EU overrule any comments from within Whitehall?
I would love to hear your opinions on this. Is it not madness for the EU to interfere in this way? Its policy, only to take action once patient care is endangered, is surely shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Get in touch and let me know your thoughts.
Obviously sending money abroad is an area where fraud is always a threat, so it is important to take all the action necessary to minimise that risk.
So, firstly try and use a firm which is authorised by the Financial Services Authority (FSA). There is a difference between those registered and those authorised by the FSA. Basically those companies who have a turnover of less than €3m a month are able to be registered rather than authorised and companies in this position do not have to ringfence your funds. However, authorised companies have to keep your money separate and it should be returned to you if the company were to go under.
As well as authorisation, look into what anti-fraud measures are used by the money transfer company concerned, such as the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard, which has 12 requirements to try and secure customer payment data. What else can customers do to ensure that any money sent overseas is protected as far as possible from fraud? We’d welcome your contributions.
I’d say without doubt that drivers who are not able to read English and therefore are unable to understand road signs should not be able to pass their driving test in the UK. Do you agree?
It’s a concern given the fact that in the last year alone almost 100,000 learner drivers required help from voiceovers and translators to read road signs and understand instructions.
The figures were provided by the Driving Standards Agency and come amid concerns that some drivers, using a translator, are actually being coached by them unbeknown to the examiner. The figures give Urdu as the most common language used for those needing help, followed by Polish and Kurdish.
Mike Penning, the road safety minister, said that the government was looking at possible changes and admitted that he was concerned at the level of foreign language support currently being used.
Surely it’s absurd that drivers are allowed on the roads when they can’t understand road signs and don’t even have a basic grasp of English. What do you think? Let me know.
Would you depend on travel review websites when choosing a holiday destination or do you choose to make your own mind up when you’re there?
I ask because Tripadvisor, probably the most widely known such website, can no longer claim that all its hotel and restaurant reviews are real. There were complaints that some hotel owners were visiting the site to post positive reviews of their hotels as well as negative ones of competitors, and therefore the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has now ruled the site is not able to state that all of its reviews were honest, or even that they come from real people.
The ASA review followed complaints from two hoteliers about reviews they said were fake and one other from the Kwikchek website which assists companies in managing their online reputations.
Tripadvisor has responded by declaring that those going on the site usually read a number of reviews rather than just one or two, and that its users make an informed decision based on the opinions of many people.
I like Tripadvisor and do use it instinctively when booking a vacation. I think its comments on making an informed decision are sensible and I personally would not book accommodation according to one good review or avoid a hotel as a result of a bad one. What do you think? Please let us know.
Adding more fuel to the fire of Eurosceptics across the land is news that the European Commission is preparing a document which will make some “Euro-crimes” punishable within the courts of this country.
The EC papers claim that the Lisbon Treaty has provided the legal basis for these new offences and that Britain would have to opt-in to the measures by 2014 or possibly face further action before the European Court of Justice.
The document says that the EU now has a proper legal basis for the adoption of criminal law directives “to ensure the effective implementation of EU policies”.
It is not clear yet what “crimes” this will cover but, not surprisingly, those already of an anti-Europe persuasion, see it as a power grab by Brussels and Bill Cash, Tory MP and, it could be said, no great admirer of the EU, has warned that Britain was opening the door to potentially radical proposals for the expansion of European criminal law.
I have read little yet of the potential benefits of these proposals, can you think of any? We would like to hear from you if you can add to what is an interesting debate.
