IMMIGRATION

 

Immigration has become one of the hottest topics of the 2015 General Election and many people, angry with the consequences of the European Union 'open borders' rules, are drawn to the UK Independence Party (UKIP) which wishes to take Britian out of the continental group.

The danger with knee-jerk reactions such as this is that the baby will get thrown out with the bathwater. (Consider that UKIP wants to introduce a USA-style insurance system for the NHS, take 'public broadcasting' out of the BBC and other major alterations to Britain's state-funded and publically-run services).

The facts do not justify leaving Europe, though public concern about rising immigration must be addressed. The business community says it needs the skills and labour offered by immigrants.

 

50.6% of UK imports came from Europe in 2012 and 45.1% of exports went to the 27 countries of Europe. The CBI estimates the EU benefits each household in Britain up to £3,000 per year.

 

One of the reasons Britons feel drawn to UKIP's stance is that, while immigration has risen, they have seen their income, lifestyle and opportunities deteriorate. Government neglect of those at the lower and middle end of the pay scales leaves families without access to decent housing, public services and safety nets and they are led by some (including some politicians and certain branches of the media) to believe it is the fault of immigration. Rather it is because of austerity - which the National Health Action Party would end.

 

If people enjoyed the prosperity they deserve in a still-wealthy country such as Britain, but are being denied through austerity, they would not feel so resentful to European economic migrants.

 

When Britain joined the 'Common Market' there were only seven members; now the EU has 27 countries. The terms of membership need to be renegotiated, and those renegotiations must be initiated from within Europe. Simply 'leaving' - as one may change one's car - does not make economic or practical sense when so many businesses and jobs rely on exports to and business with Europe.

A recent study by the Fiscal Impact of Immigration to the UK, published in the Economic Journal, reveals European migrants made a net contribution of £20bn to UK public finances between 2000-2011. Those from the 15 countries which made up the EU before 2004, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain, contributed 64% – £15bn more in taxes than they received in welfare – while east European migrants contributed 12%, equivalent to £5bn more.
 

European migrants are not a drain on Britain’s finances and pay out far more in taxes than they receive in state benefits. And Britain is uniquely successful, even more than Germany, in attracting the most highly skilled and highly educated migrants in Europe. (See http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/05/eu-migrants-uk-gains-20bn-ucl-study)

 

Confederation of British Industry (CBI) President, Sir Mike Rake, said: "Europe matters to the future of British jobs and growth. The UK has allies in Brussels and, with a new Commission set to be installed, now is the time for the UK and like-minded allies to hold European leaders to their promises of reform."
 

"63% of CBI members say (immigration) has been beneficial to their businesses; only 1% say it has been negative. And it cuts both ways: approaching 2,000,000 Britons live elsewhere in Europe.

 

"The economic evidence shows that immigration is of net benefit. EU migrants pay taxes, collect less benefits than British citizens and many do not settle in the UK permanently. Immigration has been and is part of the solution to the skills shortages faced by the UK."

 

 

The NHA Party's evidence-based policies on immigration as it affects the NHS.

 

There has been much deliberate confusion in the media between “health tourism” – the legitimate two-way traffic that provides a net income for the NHS – and the supposed cost to the NHS of long-term or short-term immigration. The attractions of making immigrants the political scapegoats for an underfunded NHS battered by privatisation is easy to see. The National Health Action Party, coming from the heart of the NHS, and dedicated to its survival, proceeds on the basis of the evidence.

 

The NHA Party doesn't believe “immigrant” is a dirty word – how could it? More than a third of registered doctors completed their primary medical qualification outside the UK. And past migration of tens of thousands of health professionals has been key to building the NHS and maintaining services ever since its foundation in 1948. Many second- and third-generation migrants are also second- and third-generation NHS workers.

 

Most temporary migrants who come to Britain specifically for healthcare are not a burden on the NHS. When schoolgirl Nobel Prize winner Malala Yousafzai was brought to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham for world-class specialist treatment after being shot in the head, the Pakistani government paid all transport, migration, medical, accommodation and subsistence costs for her and her party. Just as the NHS may, in appropriate circumstances, foot the bill for specialist care abroad when it is not available here.

 

It is undeniable that some people do come from overseas just to get receive free healthcare and we do not deny it. The cost of these to the NHS is reliably estimated to be around £70 million – 0.06% of the total NHS budget. Which is less than the estimated cost of recent government proposals to make busy health professionals police the treatment of anyone who looks or sounds as if they may have come from abroad. And a drop in the ocean compared to the £5 billion of unspent NHS money that was clawed back by the Treasury in one year, rather than being reinvested in the Service.

 

EU migrants who come here are overwhelmingly young, healthy, tax-paying workers, and therefore pay far more in to the NHS than they will ever take out – unless they choose to settle here permanently, in which they will present the same profit and loss account as the rest of us. For most migrants though, as for the British who choose to work abroad, a few years working in another country is just a prelude to returning home.
Inevitably, though, some EU migrants will need the NHS while they are here. Therefore -

 

• Greater efforts should be made to recoup money payable to the NHS from other member states under the EU's reciprocal agreement on health care abroad through the use of a European Health Insurance Card (EHIC).

 

There is reliable evidence that migrants from the EU have contributed £20 billion to the UK economy and do not, overall, reduce employment opportunities for British-born workers. That said, we recognise that successive governments have done little to alleviate the extra pressures that migration to specific areas can place on local communities in terms of health care, education, housing and employment. Therefore -

 

• We want government to use the “migration bounty” wisely in localities to accommodate migrants and to encourage integration and a cohesive community.

 

The cost of nationwide policing to weed out the occasional chancer outweighs any possible saving. Therefore -

 

• We oppose NHS staff being instructed to refuse treatment to “ineligible” foreign patients seeking medical treatment. 

 

But there are also two vital principles at stake: one moral and one scientific. First, NHS staff have a duty of care to all people seeking healthcare, and should not be required to turn people away when they are at their most vulnerable. And, second, they cannot fulfil their duty to protect the public’s health if anyone is deterred from seeking prompt treatment for illness or infection by hostile questioning.

 

In countries where healthcare is not free at the point of need, we see that not treating those who can't afford to pay generates a much bigger cost – both in money and lives lost – in the wider society. We cannot afford to sacrifice good medical practice for headline-grabbing political posturing.