HSMP and doctors' qualifications
The Border and Immigration Agency (BIA) of the Home Office has recently been refusing doctors' applications for the Highly-Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP) in cases where the doctor is fully registered with the General Medical Council (GMC), but where the National Academic Recognition Information Centre (NARIC) has not assessed the undergraduate degree as equivalent to the UK standard. This is affecting Iraqi, Nepalese, Sudanese and Filipino doctors, to name but a few.
Gherson and Co. have seen a number of individuals who have made considerable sacrifices to establish themselves within the UK medical profession, undergoing rigorous PLAB testing and GMC registration, only to find themselves in this incongruous situation. Some individuals may know of fellow graduates who have previously been awarded HSMP status, yet despite the fact that there has been no change to the NARIC evaluation of specific universities since NARIC was founded, they themselves are refused.
The UK Immigration Rules and associated guidance state that points under the HSMP may also be awarded for professional qualifications, as opposed to academic qualifications, and make reference to the relevant professional body being capable of verifying this ‘where possible’. The wording of the Home Office guidance is such that the Home Office demand that either NARIC or the relevant professional body will confirm or provide a letter to support the proposition that the undergraduate degree is ‘equivalent’ to the UK bachelor degree (BA) standard.
However the relevant professional body, the GMC, only confirm that the undergraduate degree is ‘acceptable’. It is not their practice to confirm exact ‘equivalence’ of a foreign qualification with UK academic levels as the medical profession specifically uses the PLAB (Professional and Linguistics Assessment Board) test to assess whether or not each individual candidate has the skills, knowledge and experience required to practise as a doctor in the UK. It is perfectly logical that the GMC therefore only go so far as to deem a claimant’s primary medical qualification to be ‘acceptable’ rather than ‘equivalent’, yet take one step further in imposing stringent additional qualifications. It is difficult to see how the GMC could assess all international institutions on a regular basis such as would be necessary for the GMC to confirm a true ‘equivalence’. Nor would it necessarily be responsible for them to do this on a group, rather than an individual, basis.
The Home Office approach flies in the face of the United Kingdom parliament, which specifically selected the GMC as the superior body empowered by law to set the standard for basic medical education and to ensure that these standards are met. The Education Committee, under the Medical Act 1983, sets and maintains the standards of basic medical education which includes not just undergraduate education but also the PRHO (Pre Registration House Officer), the first year of the Foundation Programme.
The current approach of the Border and Immigration Agency of the Home Office is all the more surprising as references to the GMC and its registration process, which requires a ‘satisfactory primary qualification’, are littered throughout the Immigration Directorate Instructions and internal caseworker guidance. It therefore seems surprising that the Secretary of State for the Home Office in assessing qualifications should not actually prefer the individual appraisal of the GMC, instead of deferring to NARIC.
Doctors in this position should consider taking legal advice.
Ms Kathryn Bradbury is dealing with enquiries to Gherson and Co. about this matter.
