Features

View from the House

Positive Nation marched off to the House of Commons to ask The All Party Parliamentary Group on AIDS some burning questions.

The All Party Parliamentary Group on AIDS brings together MPs and members of the House of Lords from all political parties who wish to be informed of, or campaign on, HIV/AIDS. By working together the members are able to form a more effective lobbying group to support AIDS-related causes. The group takes an interest in HIV/AIDS in the UK as well as in international development.

THE POLITICIANS

Neil Gerrard

Neil Gerrard is a Labour MP and Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on AIDS. He works with the vice-chairs to raise the profile of HIV/AIDS within parliament and ensure the needs and views of PLWA are heard.

John Bercow

John Bercow is a Conservative MP and a member of the All Party Parliamentary Group on AIDS. He has been the Shadow Minister for Work and Pensions and later for International Development. He continues to take a strong interest in these issues.

Sandra Gidley

Sandra Gidley is the Liberal Democrat Shadow Minister for health and a member of the Health Select Committee. She is a trained pharmacist and Vice-chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on AIDS. She campaigns on a number of other issues such as increasing the number of women in politics and on mental health.

THE QUESTIONS

1 The Department for Work and Pensions is withdrawing the Disability Living Allowance from some HIV+ people who were diagnosed with a terminal condition years ago, but thanks to treatment, have long outlived their life expectancy. The Department says many are now fit for work and should find jobs. Do you agree with this policy?

2 What should happen to failed asylum seekers who have no prospect of accessible or affordable HIV treatment in their country of origin?

3 HIV infection rates in the UK are rising. Has the availability of effective treatment lead to complacency by the Government about HIV/AIDS and if so what should be done about it?

4 If you could corner a Minister in a lift and have a little rant about an HIV or AIDS related issue, which Minister would you go for and would you say?

THE ANSWERS

Neil Gerrard
1 I believe we should be trying to support and encourage people who are fit to work to find work rather than remaining entirely dependent on benefits. However we know how difficult it can be for someone who has been unemployed for a long period to get back into work. Simply withdrawing a benefit is not the way to proceed. In any case DLA can be claimed by someone who is working, although of course starting work may affect the level of care or mobility allowance claimable. We should help and support people into work, not penalise them.

2 We should on humanitarian and moral grounds provide treatment and care. The argument people have come to the UK simply to obtain free treatment on the NHS is not supported by the evidence. The Home Office will often argue that antiretroviral drugs are available in someone’s country of origin, ignoring the fact that they are unaffordable for most. If we actually deliver on our commitments to universal access to care and treatment this should be a short term problem. In the longer term there should be no conflict between immigration and asylum law and ensuring that a person who needs treatment can get it, wherever they are.

3 I am not sure complacency is the problem; all the strategic policies from the Department of Health say the right things. What is missing is any urgency and especially any clear political drive to ensure that the strategies are turned into effective action. The consequence is HIV/AIDS has fallen off the agenda for many PCTs and is not seen as a priority. All the evidence from rising infection rates, not just HIV but other sexually transmitted infections, tells us risky behaviour is increasing, yet there is no really effective public health campaign on this. High level political leadership is needed.

4 The Secretary of State for Health. I’d tell him to stand up to the Home Office. Don’t be pushed into denying access to primary health care to failed asylum seekers and others with doubtful immigration status. It’s bad enough now with problems for people accessing secondary care and treatment. Don’t make it worse; for the sake of the individuals concerned who are denied treatment, and on public health grounds as well because it is in nobody’s interests to leave someone with HIV unable to access treatment. Instead rethink what is happening now and restore access to secondary care.

John Bercow
1 Yes. The Department of Work and Pensions must keep such cases under constant review and no one should be forced to work who is unable to do so. Disability Living Allowance must support those people. However, anyone who is fit and able to work should do so.

2 They should not be returned to countries which cannot provide the necessary treatment. The UK cannot be the world’s health service. However, the Government has a duty to consider the healthcare available to failed asylum seekers in the same way that it considers the political stability and safety of the countries to which it makes returns.

3 Prevention is always better than cure. I am a vociferous supporter of better sex and relationship education and a campaigner for improved contraceptive services. More must be done to encourage the use of condoms, particularly in light of a recent report which found that only 17% of people always use a condom. The Government should also establish more needle exchanges.

4 I would lobby Douglas Alexander about the 2010 target for universal access to HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, care and support. It is an important goal, which should concentrate the minds of everyone committed to fighting disease and poverty. We must re-double our efforts to achieve this historic goal. We need detailed annual targets at country level so as to hold governments to account for delivering on their promises.

Sandra Gidley
1 Blanket policies are always a bad thing and each case should be assessed on its merits. There will be some in this category whose health is poor and they should not be forced to find jobs but there will be others who, with a little help and support will be able to work. I am surprised at the question because I would have assumed that people would want to work - and being treated as a normal member of the human race will help reduce stigma.

2 My personal feeling is that it is in the wider public interest to treat - as it helps reduce the pool of infection. There is a fear that health tourism may develop and usually it is those with resources who find their way here in the first place. Some people should be able to return and would be capable of working and supporting treatment. Others genuinely have little hope but again we should treat each case on its merits and a health needs assessment could form part of an appeal process.

3 I think the complacency allegation is more accurately levelled at those who fall into high risk groups and have resumed risk taking behaviours which can lead to the disease. The bigger problem is that big increases, particularly in heterosexual transmission, are higher in certain ethnic groups and the Government does not appear willing or able to talk about, let alone tackle this problem.I would want to raise issue 3 with the Public Health Minister. If I was trapped with a DFID Minister I would stress the need to continue the joined up thinking with reproductive rights and also the need for improving basic health infrastructure before access to drugs. No point in having access to antiretrovirals if there is no means of delivering them.

4 I would want to raise issue 3 with the Public Health Minister. If I was trapped with a DFID Minister I would stress the need to continue the joined up thinking with reproductive rights and also the need for improving basic health infrastructure before access to drugs. No point in having access to antiretrovirals if there is no means of delivering them.