Indian doctors protest UK's 'unfair' health surcharge
London : UK-based Indian doctors and healthcare professionals are campaigning against what they describe as an "unfair" doubling of a health surcharge imposed on professionals from outside European Union (EU) living and working in Britain.
The "Immigration Health Surcharge" was introduced in April 2015 and from December last year it was hiked from 200 pounds to 400 pounds per year.
It is imposed on anyone in the UK on a work, study or family visa for longer than six months in order to raise additional funds for the country's state-funded National Health Service (NHS).
The British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (BAPIO), the UK's largest representative body for Indian-origin doctors, is lobbying the UK Home Office for a rethink over the charge, arguing that it would have an adverse impact on their attempt to recruit more healthcare professionals from India to meet staff shortages in the NHS.
Clinicians wishing to work in the UK are already facing burdensome processes relating to regulation and immigration, and this surcharge is only going to see UK losing out on quality healthcare professionals from non-EU countries, notes a letter from BAPIO president Ramesh Mehta and secretary Parag Singhal, sent to UK home secretary Sajid Javid last week.
The current policy adversely affects the attraction of working in the NHS and will sabotage our own requirements of providing quality health services to our patients. Therefore, in the interest of patient safety and improved morale of the immigrant workforce, we request that this unfair and highly discriminatory health surcharge for NHS-employed professionals should be reversed with immediate effect, the letter states.
According to the organisation, one in 11 NHS clinical posts are currently unfilled, rising to one in eight for nursing vacancies, and the severe shortage is likely to grow to around 250,000 by 2030.
Doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals from countries like India are often referred to as the backbone of the UK's healthcare system as they take up critical posts across hospitals and clinics in the country, the BAPIO pointed out.
BAPIO has been at the centre of organising fellowship programmes for doctors from India to fill NHS shortages while completing their training in Britain as a win-win arrangement.
But it fears these efforts would be hit as a result of the additional financial burden imposed by the health surcharge.
These professionals are paying their taxes, including National Insurance (NI) contributions, in addition to providing quality health services in over-stretched hospitals. Such an additional burden will make them feel demoralised and discriminated, said Prof. Singhal.
The health surcharge is payable by nationals from countries like India if they are seeking to live in the UK for six months or more, or to extend their stay.
The payment is made at the time the immigration application is made and is payable annually until such time as the person is granted indefinite leave to remain (ILR) in the UK, or returns to their home country at the end of their visa period.
Short-term migrants, including tourists on visitor visas, are charged differently for secondary care treatment by the NHS at the point of visa access.
Other groups have also questioned the extremely high surcharge on the grounds that it amounted to double taxation for long-term migrants, who are already expected to make tax contributions towards the care system.
Most people who do move here will work and they will pay tax. So doubling this charge is a form of double taxation. People are going to be ending up paying for the NHS twice, said Satbir Singh, chief executive of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Migrants.
The UK government says since the surcharge was introduced in 2015, it has raised over 600 million pounds, which has been ploughed back into health budgets.
It expects to raise an estimated 220 million pounds in extra funding with the doubling of the surcharge, with the funds aimed at "sustaining and protecting" the country's healthcare system.
We welcome use of the NHS by long term residents who still need leave to remain, but we believe it is right that they make a fair and proportionate contribution to its long-term sustainability," a UK Home Office spokesperson said.
"Parliament agrees and has approved the order we proposed to increase the immigration health surcharge so it better reflects the actual costs to the NHS, the spokesperson added.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Resolution for his removal: Speaker Birla to be present in House but not chair proceedings
New Delhi (PTI): The Lok Sabha will witness a rare moment most likely on Monday next when Om Birla will not chair proceedings but will be seated amongst the members as the House takes up a notice seeking his removal from office.
As Parliament meets for the second phase of the Budget session on March 9, the Lok Sabha is likely to take up the resolution moved by the opposition against Birla's for allegedly acting in a "blatantly partisan" manner.
According to the rules and laid down procedure, Birla will get a right to defend himself when the resolution is discussed by the lower house. He will also have the right to vote against the resolution, Constitution expert P D T Achary explained.
The expert said while Birla will not chair the proceedings when the resolution comes up before the House, he will be seated in the prominent rows in the Treasury benches.
At least 118 opposition members had submitted a notice for moving the resolution to remove Birla from office for not allowing Leader of Opposition (LoP) Rahul Gandhi and other opposition leaders to speak in the House on the Motion of Thanks to the President's address, as well as for suspending eight MPs.
Congress member and chief whip K Suresh submitted the notice to the Lok Sabha secretariat on behalf of several opposition parties, including his party, Samajwadi Party and DMK.
TMC MPs, however, did not sign the notice.
ALSO READ: Curbs on movement, assembly remain in force in Kashmir after protests against Khamenei's killing
Achary, a former Lok Sabha secretary general, told PTI, that the "allocation of the seat, which the Speaker occupies under such circumstances is not mentioned in the Rules".
He said Birla will also not be able to vote on the resolution using the automated vote system, but will have to fill a slip to register his vote.
He presumes that a seat belonging to a Union minister, who is from the Rajya Sabha, could be given to him as only Lok Sabha members will be able to cast their votes for or against the resolution.
Deputy speaker of the Lok Sabha and deputy chairperson of the Rajya Sabha have their earmarked seats in their respective Houses when they are not presiding over.
Front seats in the opposition benches are allocated to them.
Article 96 of the Constitution bars a speaker or a deputy speaker from presiding over the House sitting while a resolution for his removal from office is under consideration.
The speaker has a constitutional right to defend himself in the House if the resolution is discussed in the Lok Sabha.
At least two Lok Sabha members have to sign the notice to move a resolution for the speaker's removal. Any number of members can sign the notice but a minimum of two is mandatory.
The speaker can be removed from office by a resolution passed by the House through a simple majority.
Article 94C of the Constitution has provisions for such a move.
"All the members of the House are counted to compute the majority, not the members present and voting, which is the normal practice. It means the effective membership of the House, except for the vacancies, is used to calculate the majority," Achary said.
The notice has to be submitted to the Lok Sabha secretary general, and not the deputy speaker or anyone else, he said.
The document is then examined at the preliminary stage to see whether it contains "very specific charges", he said.
"At the threshold itself, there is a process of admissibility. At that stage, it is seen whether it contains specific charges. Specific charges are required as only then the speaker will be able to respond," Achary explained.
The resolution must not contain defamatory language or content.
Article 96 gives the speaker the opportunity to defend himself or herself in the House.
The language of the proposed resolution is usually examined by the deputy speaker, but since the present Lok Sabha does not have a deputy speaker, it may be examined perhaps by the senior-most member of the panel of chairpersons.
The panel helps the speaker run the House in his or her absence.
"The speaker examining a resolution that seeks his removal looks absurd," Achary said, adding that the rule is silent on the subject.
Once the processing part is over, the resolution reaches the House. But it can go to the House after 14 days, Achary said.
The chair then places it in the House for consideration. It is actually the House which admits it, or as the rule says, "grants permission".
Achary further said, "The chair then asks members in favour of the resolution to stand up. If 50 members stand up in support of it and if the criteria is fulfilled, the Chair announces that the House has granted permission. Once the House grants permission, it has to be taken up for discussion and disposed of within 10 days."
Lok Sabha sources said it will be taken up for discussion on Monday itself.
ALSO READ: SSLC exam begins in Kerala; Education Minister wishes students success
There are precedents of resolutions being moved. However, none has been adopted so far.
"The reason -- governments have a majority," Achary said.
The resolution alleges that Speaker Birla had acted in a "blatantly partisan" manner in conducting the business of the House and "abused" the constitutional office he occupies.
The Opposition also accused the speaker of making certain false allegations against members of the Congress.
Three Lok Sabha speakers -- G V Mavlankar (1954), Hukam Singh (1966) and Balram Jakhar (1987)-- had faced no-confidence motions in the past, which were negatived.
