News

While the first phase of the Laming inquiry said much about the immediate circumstances surrounding the death of eight-year-old Victoria Climbie, phase two promises to tell us a great deal about the wider social and political attitudes that could have contributed to such a tragedy.

Victoria had recently arrived in this country from the Ivory Coast with her great aunt. In this respect, her situation bears comparison with that of hundreds of other children who have been here a short time and who, because of their immigration status, are effectively shut out from services.

That heinous piece of legislation, the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, largely places these children and their families outside the welfare state. Welfare benefits, housing, and the safety net of the National Assistance Act 1948, ordinarily afforded to people in the greatest need, are denied to newly arrived immigrant families. Worse still, as the Family Rights Group pointed out in its submission to the inquiry last week, they are given only restricted access to family support under section 17 of the Children Act 1989.

According to the FRG, however, some local authorities are failing to exploit such powers as remains to them under the National Assistance Act and the Children Act. It cites cases of mothers and children who, because they are not receiving support from the National Asylum Support Service, are entitled instead to some forms of welfare provided by the social services department. Yet departments turn them away on the false grounds that "they cannot be assisted because of their immigration status".

A new report from the Maternity Alliance similarly highlights the insensitivity of support services for mothers and their children seeking refuge here. Quite apart from the unfairness of the dispersal system, the few legitimate expectations they can have of local authorities, such as maternity grants, may be refused them. This resistance, coupled with the cultural resistance families themselves often have to accessing support from white-dominated welfare agencies, may have disastrous consequences.

The upshot is that a significant number of children from ethnic minorities enjoy fewer protections than other children. It is another example of the institutional racism that remains firmly entrenched in our society, despite the professed determination of central and local government to play their part in stamping it out.

A blow to human rights

The Court of Appeal's decision that residents from a Leonard Cheshire home cannot take a judicial review to stop their eviction is a blow to vulnerable people who rely on independent providers for their care.

The three judges ruled that as the charity did not exercise public functions, it was not subject to judicial review as statutory bodies are. The residents used the Human Rights Act 1998 to try and fight the "redevelopment" of their home, arguing that it infringes their right to private and family life. But the court ruled that the new legislation had not altered the status quo and the disability charity could not be subjected to judicial review.

The residents will now take their case to the House of Lords. The Law Lords must ask parliament to amend the Human Rights Act to ensure independent providers can be subject to judicial review. As more social care services move into the independent sector, it is essential that clients can challenge decisions made by charities and companies. If not, many vulnerable people will be left without the human rights protection they need.