Asylum Seekers: Medical Treatment

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Monday 14th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, before removing failed asylum seekers, the UK Border Agency assesses whether their removal would be contrary to the UK’s obligations under Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Such case-by-case consideration may include the medical treatment and other support available in the country of return. However, the Government would not normally expect to make arrangements for foreign nationals to access medical treatment in their own country.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that someone who receives treatment here but is deported to a country where no such medication is available is going to a death sentence? Will the Minister not urgently consult, for example, the World Health Organisation and voluntary organisations to seek a way to ensure that no one, wherever they are—in the UK or elsewhere—is denied necessary basic medical attention?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I fully understand the point put so well by the noble Lord. However, the UK complies with all the requirements of the ECHR. Furthermore, DfID has an extensive health programme in developing countries. Health is the largest part of the basic services that are heavily prioritised by UK aid—the others being nutrition, education, water and sanitation. DfID’s priority areas for improving health outcomes in developing countries include malaria; reproductive, maternal and new-born health; child nutrition; and HIV/AIDS.

[Lord Tomlinson]

My Lords, given that the Minister has confirmed that we fully observe the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights, can he also say whether that applies to judgments of the European Court of Human Rights?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I thought we would get a question like that. Two cases, D and N, are from the European Court of Human Rights; the case law is very clear and the UK adheres to it.

[The Lord Bishop of Chichester]

My Lords, can the Minister give the House any assurances about instructions given to agencies responsible for the removal of failed asylum seekers, whether by coercion or by forms of restraint? What are the Government’s policies on monitoring those instructions?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I think that the right reverend Prelate was referring to the process of removal. A few weeks ago, I visited the UK Border Agency’s training for the removal process. I am satisfied that the training was up to standard.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, this issue is an example of the many responsibilities being placed on the UK Border Agency in conjunction with the National Health Service. Is the Minister satisfied that the UKBA will continue to focus on and give priority to these matters, given the 20 per cent cut in its budget and the reduction in its staff by 5,000? Is it not a question of cutting too fast and too deep?

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

No, my Lords, it is a question of prioritising resources, and I am confident that the UK Border Agency will be able to carry out its statutory duties.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the UKBA appears to have no recent policy on HIV-positive detainees, but that there is anecdotal evidence that some of them are being denied medication while in detention and that they are being given only one month’s supply of ARVs when they are removed? Will the Government consult the British HIV Association with a view to adopting the guidelines which it published two years ago, including provision of a three-month supply of medication to those who are deported, which would give patients at least some chance of finding an alternative source of treatment?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, while asylum seekers are in the UK and have not exhausted their appeal rights, they are entitled to the full range of NHS services. Asylum seekers who are returned should be supplied with sufficient drugs to meet their needs and tide them over until they can access drugs in their country of return. However, I will look further into the issue raised by the noble Lord and come back to him.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall]

My Lords, I declare an interest; I serve on the Select Committee on HIV/AIDS. The noble Earl said that people who are awaiting news of their asylum status are entitled to the full range of NHS services. Will he confirm that in fact people who test positive for HIV are not able to access free treatment?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, as far as I know those who test positive for HIV in the UK, as long as they have not exhausted all their appeal rights, have exactly the same access to NHS treatment as the rest of the population. If the noble Baroness knows any different, I would be grateful for the details.

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, is not the issue that of how seriously ill the person is? Surely, whatever the other considerations, to deport a person who is seriously ill and getting medical treatment here is wrong in principle.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the issue is whether the person being returned is fit to fly. That decision is made by NHS health professionals, not by UK Border Agency staff.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, Mr Nick Clegg promised that the coalition would end the detention of the children of asylum seekers. Why, eight months after the election, has that not been done?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, we want to get the AV Bill through.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[The Countess of Mar]

My Lords, I speak as a former member of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. Does the noble Earl agree that there is a large amount of case law relating to the returning of asylum seekers who are sick to their own countries, and that on the whole the tribunal abides by this case law?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I did not catch the noble Countess’s last point.

[The Countess of Mar]

There is a large amount of case law that, on the whole, the tribunal abides by in reaching its assessments.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, yes.