Deportations: a pregnant pause
In these whiz-bang days of 3G phones and video conferencing, how is it that
ministers in one part of government can so spectacularly operate policies
so at odds with colleagues in another?
‘Joined-up government’ is the buzzword of this administration
but where is it happening? Why, for example, is one minister at the Department
for International Development paying out millions to help Aids orphans while
another at the Home Office continues to deport HIV positive pregnant women
to countries without adequate access to HIV drugs?
Early this year, representatives from leading HIV organisations had a private
meeting with Immigration Minister Tony McNulty, arranged by the ever committed
Neil Gerrard, chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Aids.
The aim was to get McNulty to soften his stance on deporting certain groups
of HIV positive people to countries where HIV drugs are barely available.
They argued, on human rights grounds, that HIV positive pregnant women, children
and their parents and elderly people with no living relatives to support them
‘back home’ should get special consideration for leave to remain
in the UK.
The also argued that asylum seekers living in the UK for several years, especially
those on second-line therapy, should also be considered for exceptional leave
to remain. After all, even if you are lucky enough to get ARVs in your country
of origin, what use is that if you are resistant to one or more of them?
McNulty listened carefully but then did what ministers do best: nothing. He
sent a four-page letter to Mr Gerrard, politely dismissing all our pleas and
arguments. He reasserted the government’s hard-line stance on deportations
and suggested they had better information about the availability of HIV drugs
on the ground than us. PN will cover his letter in full next month, but right
now it’s worth highlighting what he said about pregnant women.
In essence, McNulty said it was OK to deport HIV positive pregnant women because
some countries can access HIV drugs to prevent mother-to-child transmission.
What he failed to mention is that only a tiny fraction of those that need
HIV drugs during pregnancy can get them in Africa. Even if they do get them,
their infant may well be protected from catching HIV, but their mother still
risks death from an Aids-defining illnesses without continuing therapy.
Bingo: another Aids orphan.
Since the Law Lords ruled against an HIV positive Ugandan asylum seeker, ‘Ms
N’, last year, things have got a lot worse. As well as fast-tracking
applications, new
asylum seekers are now be electronically tagged like criminals. Britain prides
itself on being a humanitarian nation but its image is more than tarnished
when it comes to the way it treats people with HIV. And yet, at the Asylum
and Immigration Tribunal, a judge recently told the Home Office to review
a decision against a woman with a CD4 count of 10 because, in her opinion,
this was significantly less than the CD4 count of ‘Ms N’. You
have to wonder if McNulty would be so matter-of-fact if any of his family
members were facing a similar circumstance.
Amanda Elliot, managing editor
