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.
Russia, China object to US UNSC Presidency's Programme of Work over Iran
United Nations (PTI): In a development highlighting polarisation in the UN Security Council, the monthly programme of work for the US Presidency of the powerful UN organ could not be adopted after Russia and China raised objections concerning Iran.
The United States, a veto-wielding permanent member, assumed the Presidency of the 15-nation UN Security Council for the month of March. As is customary, a monthly programme of work that outlines the Council’s anticipated meetings and events for the month is adopted by the UN body at the commencement of the Presidency.
The Council President then briefs the media in the UN headquarters on the UNSC programme of work and agenda for the month.
However, the US-drafted programme of work for its monthly presidency of the Council could not be adopted on Monday after the other veto-wielding permanent members Russia and China raised objections pertaining to the 1737 Sanctions Committee concerning Iran.
ALSO READ: With 100 days to go, World Cup faces new challenges with Iran war and Mexico violence
“Russia & China objected to the adoption of the US-drafted UNSC PoW (Programme of Work) for March,” Russia’s Permanent Mission to the UN said.
“We were compelled to take this step because the provisional programme of work proposed by the US included a briefing on the work of the 1737 Sanctions Committee concerning Iran, whose work was allegedly resumed in September 2025 following the triggering by the UK, France, and Germany of the “snapback” mechanism to reimpose the anti-Iranian Security Council resolutions,” Russia said.
“In February, we once again brought our position on this matter to the attention of our US colleagues, urging them to refrain from including such an event in the provisional programme of work. Unfortunately, our appeal remained unheeded. For this very reason, we had no other choice but to object to the adoption of the UNSC programme of work for March,” it said.
The UN Security Council had in 2015 adopted a resolution that implemented the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) concerning Iran's nuclear programme. In August 2020, the United States invoked the resolution's "snapback" mechanism, under which the Security Council can reimpose UN sanctions.
Last year, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom (UK) (collectively known as the "E3") invoked the snapback mechanism, which resulted in the sanctions being reimposed on Iran on September 27, 2025 “based on Iran’s continuing “significant non-performance” of its nuclear commitments.”
In the wake of the failure of the adoption of its monthly Programme of Work, the US released its “Plan of Work” outlining the Council’s anticipated meetings and events for the month.
A press conference by the US Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz to brief members of the media on the Programme of Work, initially scheduled for March 3, was also cancelled.
Council Presidents traditionally host about two signature events during their presidency. The first signature event by the US was a briefing on March 2 titled “Children, Technology, and Education in Conflict” under agenda item “Maintenance of international peace and security” which was presided over by First Lady Melania Trump, a history-making event since it was the first time ever that the spouse of a world leader chaired a UNSC meeting.
The second signature event that the US is expected to host will be a briefing on ‘Energy, critical minerals, and security’.
The US took over the UNSC gavel just a day after it, along with Israel, launched military strikes against Iran, killing Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other senior leaders. Tehran launched retaliatory attacks against American and Israeli targets in West Asia, a region that is now plunged in a devastating war that is impacting millions of civilians.
