the light of the recent debarcles surrounding Calais-gate, we are beginning to see hints of hostility from the French towards the British governmental administration. A great deal of the frustration stems from a growing perception that the UK system fails when it comes to illegal immigration in the current framework of the welfare state.
The argument draws is impetus from examples underlined by the likes of Alistair Darling such as that of UK-bound immigrants benefitting from state bodies such as the NHS. Seemingly, there are several intricate loopholes in the welfare system that unintentionally allow an ex-immigrant to freely claim health costs from their own country via the NHS (thanks to them possessing a European Health Card obtained during their stay in Britain). Overall, we are criticised for our apparent failure at implementing an effective administration concerning health care and processing immigrants. All of this begs the question: what can we learn from the supposedly impenetrable French bureaucracy?
Besides its fine wines, cheeses, literature and romanticism, France is home to an astounding amount of paperwork. Any one who has experienced life an an ex-pat in France will have fought through - or at least attempted to - the dense forest that is the French welfare system. Based predominantly on insurance, immigrants and ex-pats wishing to access free health care are obliged to go through several stages of lengthy administrative procedures before acquiring their 'carte vitale'. What prevails is a centralised administration model that makes it very difficult for ex-pats to benefit from the system prior to satisfying numerous criteria. The consequence of this is France being able to pride itslef on what they deem an impeccable model that keeps the system free from being abused by the outside world.
Another aspect of the French bureaucracy that warrants review is their fiscal policy. As an ex-pat working in Paris, the rate of tax stands at 25% at a minimum. Tax is a hotly debated topic in France, with many viewing the high tax as hindering employment and economic propserity. The problem with a tax right as high as this is that ex-pats who pay their own health costs during the waiting period for their health card are paying tax for a supposed benefit which they do not receive months after incurred health costs. With an income tax rate as high as it stands, many low-earning foreigners are dettered from attempting to set up a succesful future in France. This consequently exacerbates the argument that France is very succesful in managing immigration.
Despite the inherent problems, Britain could take a few lessons from the aforementioned health framework that many French natonals revere. The current model of the NHS clearly doesn't do enough to deter abuse of the system. Our welfare state is often recognised as overly sympathetic and liberal towards refugees or migrants seeking aid. France, in contrast, ensures minimal opportunity for migrants to take advantage of due to the social security model containing various complexities and meticulously drafted criterias.
Despite the deterrence created for system abusers, France's health bureaucracy has its downsides when it comes to ex-pats. A major flaw is the waiting time imposed on new arrivals applying for their Carte Vitale. Having experienced life in France's capital for two years, I have encountered numerous cases in which British, Irish or American ex-pats have waited over 12 months to obtain their seemingly unobtainable health card. This can be attributed to the endless list of checks the French government relies on during the assessment. A wait of this length is almost unheard of amongst those applying through the NHS. The consequences of France's watertight process is that that many ex-pats pay extensively for their own health charges before being eligible for reimbursement (an event lengthier process).
What the UK can learn from French policy is therefore a more thorough model that ensures minimal abuse. What Britain should avoid, however, is the long, complex process that foreign ex-pats or migrants have to live through. Evidently, it is difficult to satisfy the former without engendering the latter; it would seem the most effective system would thus be one combining the lucid clarity and rapidity of the NHS with the protective criteria of the French.
As far as fiscal policy is concerned, there is an argument to be had that such a strict tax framework ensures clampdowns on non-declared labour and thus produces a more transparent indicator of socio-economic situations and employment levels. The UK exceeds France significantly in terms of the amount of undeclared labour for which people receive cash-in-hand. Arguably, this constitutes part of the attraction for asylum seekers to come and find work in Britain. Nevertheless, French fiscality results in lower levels of employment and less people in work or motivatd to find it. The UK, however, can be said to facilitate employment by administering a more liberal tax framework which is the antithesis of the French.
Conclusively, the UK can improve the strength of their bureaucracy by taking influence from France's zero tolerance attitude towards system abuse. What the UK would do well to avoid is the lack of employment opportunities and poor states of healthcare access that result as a corollary of an overly complex welfare system and a disproportionately high rate of tax.