08.01.2004

Healthcare and moral hysteria

New Labour is proposing to charge failed asylum-seekers for healthcare. There is more to this move than budget trimming, argues Jem Jones

Proposed legislation to cha-rge non-UK residents for healthcare is undoubtedly part of the government's ongoing drive to scapegoat asylum-seekers. Within the next few weeks the health minister, John Hutton, will unveil new plans, under which 'aliens' - not least people whose application for asylum has been rejected - will be issued with a demand to pay up front for any treatment they receive from the national health service.

The proposals are likely to be in place by April 2004. It is clear that, as a result, the well-being of tens of thousands of people will be exposed to unnecessary risks. In addition to those directly threatened by the proposals, the fact that immunisation against communicable diseases will be similarly priced out of reach could well result in an increased health risk to the population as a whole.The net result is yet another dangerous and inhuman assault on the liberties of a victimised section of society.

The proposals, drawn up jointly by the department of health and the home office, claim to serve two purposes. The publicised intent is to reduce costs to the NHS. No reliable information exists as to how much money is spent on medical treatment for asylum-seekers; the government claims that the bill is £200 million a year, although healthcare providers dispute this figure.

In any case, this is hardly a monumental amount for the NHS, whose annual budget is £42 billion. So £200 million would represent less than 0.5% of the total, or the equivalent of £3.33 per member of the population each year (as opposed to £700 per capita for the NHS as a whole). Clearly then, the proposals have very little to do with saving money. Their purpose, first and foremost, is to feed the illusion that asylum-seekers are largely made up of scroungers aiming to take us all for a ride. Therefore we British must forget the divisions of class and unite in opposition to these unscrupulous fraudsters who fully deserve to be treated like social pariahs and denied basic human rights.

There is a moral hysteria - enthusiastically engendered by the rightwing press - gripping the tiny minds of the national chauvinist sections of society, trying to persuade us that the country and its national identity are in danger of being overwhelmed by foreign hordes. These draconian proposals have been met with applause from reactionary politicians of all parties, and the only serious objections within parliament emanate from a minority of Labour backbenchers.

The Conservatives have long used asylum-seekers as their favourite punch bag, while the opportunistic Liberal Democrats are unlikely to do more than bleat their 'concern' that more deserving cases might accidentally be caught in the net. However, human rights organisations like Amnesty International and the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns are already voicing their opposition. Healthcare providers have also criticised the proposals.

In order to placate those of us who think that healthcare is a right, not a privilege, the government has thrown a few crumbs. People who have applied for asylum can still receive free medical care while their claims are being processed. Those who have started treatment while their application is being dealt with will be allowed to complete the course. The 90% of applicants who are refused asylum, some of whom on mere technicalities, will still be eligible for casualty and urgent psychiatric treatment while awaiting appeal or deportation.

In all other cases, even in an emergency, people will be forced to pay for medical treatment or go without. It is apparent that, except in the most unlikely of circumstances, asylum-seekers who require health treatment will be presented (in advance) with a bill that they have no way of paying for. Asylum-seekers are already treated as inferior beings, considered unworthy of basic rights. An adult currently receives £37.77 a week in state welfare payments - just 70% of even the pittance that a UK citizen is entitled to - and is prevented from working. In addition the government is currently fighting a legal battle, which, if successful, will deny even this paltry sum to the 50% of asylum-seekers who apply once they are in the country.

This year will also see the government's Immigration and Asylum Bill 2004 become law. The bill, which has just received its second reading in the House of Commons, will, amongst other things, withdraw benefits from people whose application has been refused, and proposes the introduction of identity cards and electronic tagging of asylum-seekers.

These proposals are merely the latest in the government's series of concerted attacks on civil liberties, ostensibly aimed at specific minorities, but in reality hitting at the rights of all. Home secretary David Blunkett has played a prominent role in all this. In a confused and contradictory article in The Observer he attempted to defend the government's policies by highlighting the dangers of racism (December 14). Modest man that he is, however, he does not accept any responsibility for increasing ethnic identification and tension.

Rather, he obliquely refers to a sense of injustice felt by working class families. The danger, he asserts, is that if New Labour is complacent about such dissatisfaction, then it could open the door to the right or even the far right. Fortunately, Blunkett has the answer. By adopting the policies of the far right, no one will have any reason to vote for them. The government's official anti-racism is used as a cover for the consistent victimisation of new migrants, in particular asylum-seekers. Existing citizens, of whatever ethnicity or country of origin, are urged to stand together against the outsider. Using migrants as a scapegoat thus performs a valuable service.

When people voice concerns about the state of the education system or the health service, or any other public institution, the government does not have to accept any responsibility: it is all down to those unscrupulous asylum-seekers. Blunkett's anti-racism is of the divisive, national chauvinist variety.

We communists take a very different stand. Leaving aside the obvious lie about the United Kingdom being 'swamped', it is a key point of communist principle to defend the right of people to live and work wherever they want, in any country of the world. If capital and its products can move freely across borders, then labour must enjoy the same right.

The proposed new legislation not only further victimises asylum-seekers: it puts at risk their health and even their lives. Already they receive inadequate standards of healthcare. Not just because of conditions in their country of origin or the often harrowing journey to the UK, but also because of the substandard living conditions and diet made available to them once they have arrived here. Free and promptly delivered healthcare is a universal right that could easily be provided today in every advanced capitalist country, including Britain.

It should not be luxury or a privilege granted only to a select few. To remove access to such a necessity is an assault on the rights and dignity of asylum-seekers, and is likely to foretell further attacks on the rights and dignity of us all.

Jem Jones