Opinion - News Analysis   

Victims of "arbitrariness gone mad"

Hasan Suroor

Indian doctors are not questioning Britain's right to regulate immigration to suit its changing needs. They are contesting the decision to apply rules retrospectively to those already in the country.

OVERSEAS DOCTORS, especially from the Indian subcontinent, were once regarded as the backbone of Britain's National Health Service (NHS) that was virtually run by Patels, Khans, and Mehtas because there were simply not enough home-grown doctors to meet its needs. Britain was so desperate to attract good doctors from anywhere it could get them that even normal immigration rules did not apply to those willing to work long hours for low wages and without complaining about racial discrimination and abuse.

But now that the country has started to produce more medical graduates than it can find jobs for, and hard-working doctors from other European Union countries are knocking at the door, the Indian "steel frame" of the NHS is facing demolition. A new sons-of-the soils policy, introduced last summer, effectively bars government hospitals from hiring doctors from outside the EU unless they can demonstrate that a suitable local candidate is not available. As a result, thousands of overseas medical post-graduates, training in Britain or working as junior doctors, face an uncertain future and may be forced to return home.

Of the more than 15,000 such doctors, 80 per cent are from India making it an oddly sad Indian story at a time when the buzz is all about "India shining." With their personal savings running out and job prospects virtually nil because of the new policy, designed to favour home-grown/EU doctors, many have been reduced to living on handouts from friends, relatives, and, in some cases, even charity organisations. They were embarrassed when a newspaper recently published a photograph of Indian doctors queuing up outside the Sri Mahalakshmi temple in East London for free meals. "We came here to lead a better life and look what we have been reduced to," said one doctor with tears in his eyes.

The British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (BAPIO), which is campaigning on their behalf, had been banking on a favourable court judgment but, in what one doctor described as the "last straw," the High Court rejected their case last week. Dr. Ramesh Mehta, president of the BAPIO, said: "We are deeply disappointed because we believe we had a very strong case."

Last hope

Their last hope now lies with the Appeals Court where they have filed a petition seeking review of the High Court ruling and a stay on the implementation of the new rules until their appeal is decided. But it could be months before the case is decided and meanwhile the petitioners remain in a limbo.

The dispute is not about the new rules per se or about Britain's right to regulate immigration to suit its changing needs. It is the decision to apply them retrospectively to those who are already here that is being questioned. "Arbitrariness gone mad" is how an angry young Indian doctor dubbed it.

"We respect Britain's right to change its immigration laws but bringing people under one set of rules and then changing them at short notice to get rid of them is arbitrary," said a spokesman for the Voice of Britain's Skilled Immigrants, a newly formed protest group.

BMA view

It is a view shared by the British Medical Association which has called the decision "horrifying" pointing out that the overseas doctors, now being shown the door, have devoted a ``huge amount of talent, time, and energy'' to the NHS. Dr. Jo Hilborne, chairman of the BMA's Junior Doctors' Committee, acknowledges that the number of doctors coming to Britain must be based on the needs of the NHS but says: "What the government is doing is unfair on the doctors who are already here. Many are going to have to completely uproot themselves and their families, take their children out of school, sell their homes, and make arrangements to leave the country, all at very short notice."

Experts argue that the new system is also likely to deprive the NHS of international talent as merit is replaced by positive discrimination in favour of domestic candidates.

One of the great strengths of the NHS has been its large pool of the best medical talent from around the world. But under the new protectionist regime, an outstanding doctor from Asia or Africa could be overlooked in favour of a home-grown mediocrity. In the long term, it could affect the quality of care provided by the NHS. And, as Dr. Edwin Borman, chairman of the BMA's international committee, has warned, such arbitrary policy changes could also damage Britain's "reputation in international medicine."

Support for the aggrieved overseas doctors has also come from a number of other bodies of medical professionals such as the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland, besides individual British doctors and rights campaigners who believe that the retrospective application of the new rules may, in fact, be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Doctors are not the only victims of rules-made-on-the-hop. Several thousand non-medical professionals and entrepreneurs also find themselves unwanted because of the recent changes to the eligibility requirements for British residency. They came here under the High-Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP) introduced in 2003 to meet shortages in areas such as IT and to attract investment. Those who qualified under the HSMP were offered full residency in Britain after they had stayed here for four years. Lured by the prospect of a good life, many gave up good jobs and sold their businesses in their own countries to settle in Britain.

But because of the new rules, introduced last November and applied retrospectively, a large number of them are being told to return home because they do not meet the revised criteria. The Government claims that the changes are meant to prevent abuse of the system and to make sure that only those who can benefit Britain are allowed to settle. Sure. But must it be done in so arbitrary a fashion?

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

A welcome agreement
Moving forward on safety
Russia signals end of strategic retreat
Beijing's mediatory role the key
Victims of "arbitrariness gone mad"
Once most beloved, now most hated
Motherly love may alter genes for the better
Corrections and Clarifications
What a relief!
Well done
Cauvery issue
On wearing helmets

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu