A/HRC/14/30/Add.3 F. Access to health care, regardless of immigration status 67. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the adoption of interim guidance in April 2009 by the Department of Health to clarify the scope of emergency treatment for refused asylumseekers and migrants in irregular situations, who, according to the law, do not benefit from free health-care services except in case of emergency. He notes with appreciation that this guidance indicates that immediately necessary treatment, including maternity care, must never be withheld; urgent treatment for conditions such as cancer, which would deteriorate significantly if untreated, should not be withheld or delayed if the person cannot pay and is unable to return to his/her country; primary health-care trusts should not pursue charges beyond what is reasonable and have the option to write off debts where it would be impossible or futile to pursue them. Nevertheless, the Special Rapporteur is concerned by the element of the guidance which states that “non-urgent treatment, which can wait until the person returns home, should not be started until payment has been made”. In the Special Rapporteur’s view, this guidance regrettably does not address the fundamental issue, which is not to make health care conditional on a person’s immigration status. 68. Information received suggests that the great majority of separated asylum-seeking children are registered with a general practitioner. However, an overwhelming concern among nearly all stakeholders was the issue of interpreters and how the lack thereof and the reluctance of health services to use them affected children’s access and ability to understand and continue with treatment. This seems to be the case across a range of different services including general practitioners, hospitals and counselling and specialist mental health services. In view of the above, the Special Rapporteur welcomes the findings from a joint review carried out by the Department of Health and the Home Office on access to the National Health Service by foreign nationals in July 2009, which recommends, inter alia, that refused asylum-seekers or unaccompanied asylum-seeking children should not be charged for access to secondary health care. 51 G. Other concerns 69. The Special Rapporteur acknowledges the threat posed by international terrorism and is aware of the long-term strategy for countering international terrorism (CONTEST) established in 2003. He welcomes the strategy’s revisions undertaken in 200652 and 2009,53 by virtue of which the observance of international law and human rights standards and the promotion of good governance were included as guiding principles in all counter-terrorism efforts. However, he remains concerned about the human rights implications of the use of the grounds of “national security” and the “terrorism threat” to deprive non-nationals legally married to British nationals of the right to stay in the territory of the United Kingdom. In this connection, concern is expressed about section 56 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, in force as of 16 June 2006, which lowers the threshold for withdrawal of British citizenship by recognizing a new power of the Secretary of State who may order that a person be deprived of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is “conducive to the public good”. 51 52 53 GE.10-12095 See Joint Department of Health and Home Office review, “Access to NHS Services for foreign nationals”, July 2009. HM Government, “Countering International Terrorism: The United Kingdom’s Strategy”, July 2006, p. 9. HM Government, “Pursue, Prevent, Protect, Prepare – Countering the terrorist threat. The UK Government’s strategy”, 2009. 17