British values

There is a lot about in the UK press these days about the importance of British values and how all immigrants should adopt these values (the list includes a sense of fairplay, justice, dignity and respect).

I have sometimes wondered whether the British are 'hijacking' what are essentially universal human values and calling them 'British' (in fact I still believe there is an element of this involved).

However, something happened recently that made me think: 'Now that's what I call British values because this will not happen in many other countries', i.e., in the fairplay shown by the powers that be, there was something uniquely British.

The background to this is that the Department of Health (DoH) brought in a set of measures to curb the employment opportunities of non EU doctors in the UK National Health Service (NHS) two years ago. This move was challenged by the British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (BAPIO) in the High Court where they lost. Following this, BAPIO took the case to the Appeals Court, where in a landmark decision, three senior judges found in favour of non-EU doctors.

Not satisfied with this outcome, the Government took the case further, to the House of Lords, the only avenue for judicial review above the Appeals Court in the UK.

The following is taken from the House Of Lords hearing on this issue (on the 30th of April 2008):

''With effect from 1 April 2003 the Immigration Rules were amended to expand a programme introduced in January 2002 and known as the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP). The object of the amendment was to facilitate the entry into the country of highly-skilled non-nationals who would be an asset to our economy. …. the HSMP applied to all skilled occupations and was not confined to the medical profession, although the selection criteria were such that most International Medical Graduates (IMGs) would meet them.

(The Department of Health had) concerns that the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP) might prove an alternative route for International Medical Graduates to obtain appointments as junior doctors. So the Department proposed that the HSMP be restricted…, so as to exclude IMGs at postgraduate training level from the HSMP. An amendment of the Immigration Rules to this effect could not, however, be agreed with the Home Office, with whom the responsibility lay for amending the Rules. So the Department (of Health) decided to take action on its own. It did so by issuing, on 13 April 2006, the guidance attacked in these proceedings.

To speak of the guidance being “issued” is to suggest a degree of official formality which was notably lacking. It appears that the guidance was published on the NHS Employers’ website in terms approved by the Department, but no official draft, record or statement of the guidance has been placed before the House, which has instead been referred to an e-mail beginning “Dear All” sent by an official of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate of the Home Office in response to confusion caused by some earlier communication. It is for others to judge whether this is a satisfactory way of publishing important governmental decisions with a direct effect on people’s lives.

Until April 2006 the Government had encouraged IMGs with HSMP status to come to this country in the expectation that they would get work in the National Health Service. The aim was that these skilled migrants would help staff the Health Service. In fact, for some years, it must have been clear to the Government that, due to a change which it had itself initiated soon after taking office, from about 2005 there would be an increased supply of home-grown medical graduates. In order to try to provide jobs in the National Health Service for these home-grown doctors, in April 2006 the Government issued advice to NHS trusts in England. (Similar advice was issued for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.) The advice was intended to free up places by making it impossible in practice for IMGs with HSMP status, including those already in this country, to obtain appropriate NHS posts. In my view, that was unfair to the IMGs with HSMP status in this country because the Government thereby dashed the legitimate expectations which it had fostered and on which they had acted. The advice was accordingly unlawful.

Obviously, the Government could have achieved its objective if it had amended the Immigration Rules. For various reasons, it chose not to do so. But, if it had chosen to try to amend the Rules, it would have required to pay the political price of subjecting the proposed change, and its highly damaging effects on the IMGs with HSMP status in this country, to the scrutiny of Parliament.

I would dismiss this appeal (by the Department of Health) with costs.''

So you see, there is a certain 'British sense of fairplay'

On a larger scale

this confirms what my father always says:

'If Truth is on your side ...

you have nothing to worry,

because sooner or later

it will out'

There is still hope -

thanks to

the House of Lords (in this instance)

and my father (always)