Meeting Chaired by Neil Gerrard MP,
Chair of All-Party Parliamentary Group on AIDS and APPG Refugees.
Speakers:
Mr. Paul Ennals – Chief Executive,
National Children’s Bureau
Dr. Rana Chakrabborty – Secretary of
the Children HIV Association
Ms. Lisa Nandy – Children’s Refugee
Consortium
Mr. Martin Narey – Chief Executive of
Barnardo’s
Mr. Paul Ennals:
Thank you to the APPG AIDS for their
involvement and interest with children. I aim to give you an introduction
and overview of the report we are here to launch today.
Why are we talking about these
children? A key test of the strength of countries policies is if it cares
for the most vulnerable children. How can we make sure that the needs of
200-250 children living with HIV and with insecure immigration status are
met?
In the UK there are some 1200 +
children living with HIV. 200-250 of these have insecure immigration
status. We have found it more challenging to get information from these
families for a number of reasons for this report. Paediatricians and the
African HIV Policy Network and the Children’s Network have worked together
to obtain information.
Headline issues:
- All children
in the UK are covered by the UNCRC. However, all Locals Authorities as not
adhering to this and are not providing the help and support they should.
- The NHS
charging policy needs to be looked into. Some families that should be
accessing antenatal care are not accessing it.
- NASS
dispersal policy needs to be reviewed. Practice does not always follow the
guidelines. Kids need to be sent to places where they will receive good
HIV-care.
- The Policy
environment (i.e. negative in the UK) needs to be adjusted.
Lisa Nandy:
The
Asylum system is characterised by confusion, complexity and uncertainty.
-
Many of
these complexities are the reasons why children in this situation are
very vulnerable – before any additional needs are taken into account.
- Firstly because they’re virtually invisible. Asylum
system not geared up for children and does not necessarily take their
views into account (children are treated as an appendage of their
families)
- Lack of safeguards for children e.g. Section 11 of
the Children Act 2004 which lays a duty on public bodies that come into
regular contact with children to have regard to their welfare – but the
two main immigration agencies are excluded.
- Wider conflict between children’s legislation and
immigration legislation - the two often run contrary. Government view is
that when the two conflict immigration control takes precedence.
- During the last 5 years we have seen increasing
willingness to target families and children e.g. detention, removals,
destitution policies. This has a strong impact on children who need to
maintain links and access support from statutory bodies.
- These policies – most famous of which was section 9 –
have made people frightened and lost contact with authorities. They’ve
deliberately made some people destitute. We have particular concerns
about the children in these families and the contact they have with
authorities – 36 families went underground as a result of section 9. Of
particular concern for this most vulnerable group of children.
-
Section
9 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 2004 says that families who have
reached the end of the asylum process and exhausted all their appeal
rights can have their financial support and accommodation removed if
they ‘fail to take reasonable steps’ to leave the UK. In the event that
families are made destitute, they can face having their children removed
and taken into the care of social services.
- Working with children requires a relationship of
trust and we see every day the impact this has on relationships between
children and professionals.
- We have witnessed increasing restrictions on
entitlements to support for people in or at the end of the asylum
process in recent years – including basic support (use of vouchers) ESOL,
education and (most concerning) healthcare. There is a particular impact
on this group of children.
- Increasingly common distinction between asylum
seekers and recognised refugees has meant children in asylum seeking
families live on very low incomes (2/3rds of income support) and aren’t
entitled to the same services as those with status.
This report, Children, HIV, Asylum
& Immigration really highlights the impact on children at the sharp
end of this process and the costs – both human and economic – of policies
which push people into destitution. Both as an organisation and as chair
of a consortium of voluntary organisations working with these children I
suspect this will become of increasing concern if action is not taken.
Dr. Rana Chakraborty:
It is difficult for us as Doctors to
know how the children we are discussing today who live with traumas are
living through these events. Irrespective of background a loss of a sense
of belonging and a loss of identity makes it extra hard to deal with
everyday amenities. It is difficult for everyone to deal with new
structures, but this group are particularly vulnerable.
I believe that a lot of the problems
of not coping with medicines are linked to the additional problems
associated with not having secure immigration status. Health often ends
up at the bottom of the list after solving problems with housing, food and
other necessities.
It is often an opportunistic infection
in these kids that leads to an HIV-test.
Out of 1400 reported cases 1100
followed up. 52% of these children live in London and the South East. 44%
are 10 years or older; a positive note that so many have lived through
early childhood. 63% of the children are on HAART and 81% have an
undetectable viral load. Since 1996 and HAART we have seen a 400% decrease
in mortality in this group. 18 children have died since 1996; 9 died
within the first month of diagnosis. 19% within this cohort (1400 kids)
have insecure immigration status.
ALL-PARTY
PARLIAMENTARY 
