International Women’s Day: Progress on Global Gender Equality

Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome this debate marking International Women’s Day, and thank the Minister for initiating it. I celebrate, as other noble Lords do, the centenary of women’s suffrage this year. Celebration, however, must not mask the plight of too many women internationally and here in the UK.

To this end, I wish to raise the situation of detained women in Yarl’s Wood, some of whom are currently on hunger strike. Although campaigners have welcomed improvement in conditions at Yarl’s Wood since the implementation of the adults at risk policy, which should mean that survivors of sexual and gender-based violence would not normally be detained and that the routine detention of pregnant women would be ended, there are still concerns for detained women.

Today sees a lobby of Parliament by refugee and migrant women under the banner of All Women Count, which calls for safety, dignity and liberty for all women regardless of status in the UK. The Government currently lock up 1,600 asylum-seeking women every year. Critics of the use of detention say it is unfair to deprive a person of their liberty for administrative convenience; that detention is costly, ineffective and harmful; and that there are better alternatives.

Of particular concern, highlighted by noble Lords last week, is that indefinite detention is harmful to detainees’ mental health and well-being. Safeguards to protect detainees and prevent inappropriate cases from being detained are insufficient and ineffective. As my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett said,

“the point about indefinite detention is not that the person is never released; it is that they do not know when they will be released … this has a devastating impact on mental health”.—[Official Report, 27/2/18; col. 587.]

All these concerns are still being played out at Yarl’s Wood, according to the campaign group Women for Refugee Women, to which I owe my thanks for this briefing. Last year, this group conducted interviews with 26 women who have claimed asylum and been detained since the adults at risk policy came into force and, alarmingly, found that survivors of sexual and gender-based violence are still routinely detained. Many had experience of domestic violence, forced marriage, female genital mutilation and forced prostitution and trafficking. Many had been detained for long periods even when their mental and physical health had deteriorated. Women reported feeling suicidal, and two had attempted suicide while in detention.

I recognise that the Government argue that the purpose of detention is to enable swift removal, but there are too many examples of women incarcerated for long periods. Home Office statistics show that, in 2017, 43% of asylum-seeking women leaving detention had been detained for 29 days or more. Although the number of pregnant women detained has fallen since the 72-hour time limit came into force, it is still the case that the majority of pregnant women are subsequently released to continue with their claims, so their detention serves no purpose. Fewer than 20% of pregnant women who are detained are removed from the UK.

Women for Refugee Women has raised a number of concerns about how the new approach is actually working, despite the good intentions following the Shaw review. There is no screening process that actively identifies whether someone is vulnerable or at risk before they are detained, so survivors of sexual and gender-based violence are going into detention before any attempt has been made to find out about their previous experiences. Survivors of sexual and gender-based violence are not believed when they disclose their previous experiences and find it difficult to obtain supporting evidence that the Home Office will accept. Women are not automatically informed about rule 35 reports—medical reports prepared by doctors working in detention centres—which the Home Office will accept as evidence. Even then, women with this legitimate evidence have remained in detention.

Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons report on Yarl’s Wood, published in November 2017, noted “significant improvements” since its last inspection in 2015, but raised concerns about rule 35:

“There were unacceptable delays in the Rule 35 process. The quality of reports was generally poor. They were vague, lacked detail and did not adequately address symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. In some cases the Home Office refused without explanation to accept rape as torture. Detention had been maintained in most cases that we looked at without addressing the exceptional circumstances for doing so. In several cases, detention was maintained despite the acceptance of professional evidence of torture”.


Will the Minister assure the House that the inspector’s recommendation is being implemented? That is:

“Rule 35 assessments should be completed within 24 hours. Reports should provide clear, objective and detailed professional assessments, including on evidence of PTSD. Responses should be prompt. Where professional evidence of torture is accepted, the exceptional reasons leading to the decision to maintain detention should be provided in detail. Rape should be considered a form of torture for the purposes of Rule 35”.


HMIP noted that just a third of all rule 35 reports submitted by doctors working in Yarl’s Wood in the six months prior to its last inspection had resulted in the woman concerned being released. Overall, it found that vulnerable women were still being detained,

“despite professional evidence of torture, rape and trafficking, and in greater numbers than we have seen at previous inspections”.

As a result, it concluded that,

“the effectiveness of the adults at risk policy, which is intended to reduce the detention of vulnerable people, was questionable”.

It is surely wrong that those whose mental and physical health are clearly deteriorating while in detention should remain without hope. Home Office statistics show that, in 2017, 85% of asylum-seeking women released from detention were released back into the community to continue with their asylum claim. So their detention appeared to serve no purpose.

Campaigners are calling for a proactive screening process to ensure survivors of sexual and gender-based violence are identified before detention. There should be an absolute exclusion on the detention of pregnant women. There should be a 28-day time limit on immigration detention. Community-based alternatives for immigration detention, focused on support and engagement, are more effective and less expensive than detention.

Good practice has been demonstrated by the family returns process, implemented in 2011, following the welcome pledge to end the detention of children, which has reduced by 96%. The Government should do more to move away from the detention model and into community-based alternatives. Perhaps the new review by Stephen Shaw to assess progress against the key recommendations for action in his previous report, Review into the Welfare in Detention of Vulnerable Persons, will encourage the Government to be braver.