Amnesty A-Z: U for the United Kingdom
Medicins de Monde UK recently released its 2nd report by The European Observatory on Access to Healthcare on the right to health and access to healthcare for undocumented migrants in the UK and Europe. Credit: MDM.
This week’s Amnesty Human Rights series continues with a focus on the recent violations by the UK Government with regard to its human rights record. We consider several key issues of recent UK policy including returning individuals to questionably safe states, treatment of Iraqi detainees by UK armed forces, and access to healthcare for rejected asylum seekers.
To meaningfully address inequality at home in the UK, a new approach is needed which comprehensively tackles the many social ills that unfortunately still afflict the former Imperial power.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, otherwise known as Britain or the UK, has a long established tradition of respect for its subjects’ rights. Many would say the process began as far back as the 13th century, when in 1215 the King signed the infamous Magna Carta (the ‘Great Charter of Freedoms’), proclaiming certain rights and legal procedures to the citizens or subjects of the Crown. Since then, the UK has gone on to become party to an immense range of instruments and conventions, notably the International Covenants on Economics, Social and Cultural Rights (the ICESCR) and on Civil and Political Rights (the ICCPR), the European Convention on Human Rights, and a myriad of other UN conventions. As we will see though, the human rights record of the UK government has not been altogether positive in recent years, and demands a close inspection.
Amnesty’s 2009 report documents in significant detail attempts to deport individuals posing a threat to ‘national security’ to areas they would be at great risk of human rights violations, including torture or other maltreatment. Unenforceable promises from the recipient countries are put forward by the Government as sufficient to reducing the risk the individuals would face, despite the limitations these diplomatic assurances or promises may have. A Court of Appeal ruled in April that 2 cases of deportation of Libyan nationals couldn’t proceed due to the risk of torture or ill-treatment that they would face.
A further area of concern was the recent admission by the Secretary of State for Defence in March 2008 of a “substantive” breach of the Right to Life and the Prohibition of Torture under the European Convention on Human Rights in the case of Baha Mousa, an Iraqi civilian who died at a UK-run detention facility in Iraq in 2003. Baha Mousa eventually died after extreme torture and abuse over a period of 36 hours, resulting in £2.83 million compensation to Baha’s family. The Corporal in charge pleaded guilty to a charge of war crimes under the International Criminal Court, though six further soldiers though implicated were never charged, with the presiding judge identifying a “more or less obvious closing of ranks” to avoid complicity in the act.
Access to healthcare for vulnerable migrants remains to be a complicated and problematic area for many in the UK. In April 2004, regulations came into effect that effectively removed the right to free NHS care on hospitals from ‘overseas visitors’. This vague term encompasses a highly important subgroup of refused asylum seekers, undocumented migrants and victims of trafficking. For apparent reasons including the need to stem ‘health tourism’ – the arrival of people in the UK for the express purpose of using the country’s healthcare system – and of not wanting to promote the UK as an attractive haven for the world’s displaced or disadvantaged population, the UK government went on to attempt to remove primary care availability to the same population, a move strongly opposed by a coalition of health organisations over the past few years. Removing healthcare from those in the country and in need of support in theory would contravene the Right to Health duty on the UK state; under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Not only that, it dispels any cost-efficiencies of a healthcare system since all patients are granted access to emergency care. Preventing a crisis from occurring, for example a case of diabetic ketoacidisos with prompt and regular insulin, is far more effective and economical than allowing a patient’s health to deteriorate.
The many issues described above stem from three key deficiencies of UK policy in health and human rights. Firstly, the lack of a codified constitution which explicitly details the fundamental rights of those living in the UK is an important area needing to be tackled since presently, the rights or ‘liberties’ in effect merely allow an individual to be free to do what he or she likes, providing the activity is within the constraints of the law. Any rights conferred on a person are therefore ‘residual’ or marginal. Secondly, regarding the right to health it remains to be seen whether the UK will make a positive right to health or healthcare under International Human Rights law; the . The National Health Service Act 1977 imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to provide “adequate” healthcare, but the courts have not thus far been willing to enforce this duty. Finally, the social and political tradition of the UK Government, though once upon a time a progressive advocate for the welfare state, for social goods such as the National Health Service and support for the poor, have evolved since then to one whose policies follow a liberal approach, in contrast to the Social Democratic traditions of countries such as Sweden or Norway. A 2001 analysis of years of economic and social policy in the OECD reflected that the overall impact of the UK and other liberal-minded economies had had on income inequalities and population health was less effective, when compared to the redistributive and socially-minded countries of say, Scandinavia. The UK has a proud history of advocacy for the poor and vulnerable and continues to support international and local development though a great many initiatives. To meaningfully address inequality at home in the UK, a new approach is needed which comprehensively tackles the many social ills that unfortunately still afflict the former Imperial power.