Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Guest posts

Guest post: "Detention is no place for pregnant women"

306 replies

MumsnetGuestPosts · 07/03/2016 17:40

Lucy* was 23 when she fell pregnant as a result of brutal sexual violence. Her mother bought her a plane ticket to the UK, thinking she and her baby would be safe here - but she was detained straight from the airport. She arrived frightened, alone and pregnant, and was locked up.

Lucy spent four weeks in Yarl's Wood between months five and six of her pregnancy. She told me that she couldn't believe places like this existed in the UK.

Her pregnancy had been painful, Lucy said. At one point, things got so bad that her solicitor had to intervene to ensure she was taken to the nearby hospital for medical attention. The staff at Yarl's Wood were dismissive of her complaints; there's a prevalent culture of disbelief, and women are often accused of pretending to be ill to strengthen their asylum case. Concerns have repeatedly been raised about the quality of the healthcare provision at Yarl's Wood, and Lucy had no idea what was going to happen to her or her baby.

About a month after she was detained, Lucy was released. She had nowhere to go, and had to rely on the kindness of strangers until her baby boy was born. Her son is now three months old and they are living in the community, but their asylum status is still in limbo.

About a month after I first met Lucy, I also met Priya* in Yarl's Wood, where she'd been for about six weeks. She was 25, and around five months pregnant; her story is also told in .

I visit Yarl's Wood about once a month, and always take small gifts for the women I'm visiting – usually nice smellies, body lotions and shampoos. When I asked Priya what she wanted me to bring, she asked for a photo of a baby girl to look at, and I felt so saddened by the simplicity of her request. During her time in Yarl's Wood, she'd been taken to Bedford hospital for her 20 week scan, so she knew she was having a girl and desperately wanted to imagine what she might be like.

Priya had been taken late for her appointment, escorted by Yarl's Wood officers, and hadn't had time to speak to the midwife afterwards. She was clearly frustrated, anxious, and uncertain about what to expect. "I used to worry about myself, but now I only worry about what will happen to my daughter," she told me.

She also felt very alone. She has no family, either in the UK or her home country, and her partner, like her, is an asylum seeker. Although they spoke on the phone every day, he lived in asylum support accommodation at the other end of the country, and couldn't afford to visit. At the time, I was the only 'social' visitor she'd had. I couldn't believe how tiny and fragile she looked when we first met, but she told me she felt weak and sick all the time.

She struggled to eat the food that was provided, and had been unable to access proper support for her depression, low blood pressure, and problems sleeping. The experience of detention is immensely distressing, and over half the women we surveyed in detention said they thought about killing themselves. For Priya, pregnancy and the separation from her partner also made her more emotionally vulnerable, but staff were again dismissive and unkind when she sought help for her mental health problems.

Lucy and Priya's stories are heartbreaking, but sadly they are not alone in their experiences. Over the course of 2014, 99 pregnant women were detained in Yarl's Wood – despite the Home Office's own policy that pregnant women should only be detained under 'exceptional circumstances'.

At Women for Refugee Women we know, from the stories of women like Lucy and Priya, that detention is no place for pregnant women. And it's not just our opinion – two recent independent reviews, by HM Prisons Inspectorate and Stephen Shaw, as well as medical and legal experts, have expressed similar concerns about pregnant women being detained. Join our Set Her Free campaign to ensure all women who seek asylum in the UK are treated with dignity and respect - sign the petition here.

*Names have been changed

OP posts:
sportinguista · 09/03/2016 13:38

So, many people on here do not agree with all aspects of the immigration and asylum systems in different ways. Some of us have made suggestions on what could be improved.

It seems you are looking for just one answer, no detention for anybody at any point. You realise that people can disappear into the black economy if that happens? And some of what happens to them there is worse than detention.

WomanWithAltitude · 09/03/2016 13:39

No. That's not correct.

Do some research - there is absolutely masses of material out there about the UKs practices, including indefinite detention of asylum seekers. It isn't hard to find.

SomaticInsomniac · 09/03/2016 13:39

Way to go emily & woman/twisted/widow. You've managed to hijack and derail yet another thread and a guest post no less.
No one even mentioned religion until emily dragged her pro-muslim views onto yet another thread.
I have no idea how HQ are allowing this.

sportinguista · 09/03/2016 13:40

From this website, which I believe is reputable:

migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/immigration-detention-uk

"The majority of immigration detainees are held for less than two months."

sportinguista · 09/03/2016 13:40

2 seconds on Google now I HAVE to get back to work or shit and fan are going to meet!

WomanWithAltitude · 09/03/2016 13:41

That's not what I'm arguing for. What I am arguing is that the human rights abuses, including indefinite detention, perpetrated by the UK government should end. That's not the same as saying never detain anyone ever, or that all asylum claims must be approved.

This isn't even a particularly controversial or 'out there' view. Other countries manage to be humane, why not us?

WomanWithAltitude · 09/03/2016 13:43

Wtf somatic?

The op is about the human rights and treatment of detained asylum seekers. That's what I'm posting about. How have I hijacked and derailed it?

And you say 'another thread' - what other threads are you claiming that I've 'hijacked and derailed'?

sportinguista · 09/03/2016 13:44

I'm now confused as to what you actually do want entirely. Got to work sorry!

Icompletelyunderstand · 09/03/2016 13:45

So what do you consider to be 'indefinite' and how long is too long?

You say France has a limit of 45 days. What happens after 45 days?

WomanWithAltitude · 09/03/2016 13:45

Sporting - whatever happens to the majority, there are many who are held for much longer.

Like I said, for comparison, France's maximum period is 45 days (1.5 months). We are an outlier in not having a maximum.

Icompletelyunderstand · 09/03/2016 13:48

And what happens after 45 days?

WomanWithAltitude · 09/03/2016 13:48

I don't know the detail of the French system. But I do know that (a) indefinite detention is a recognised human rights abuse, (b) no other county uses it and (c) there are plenty of alternative models for dealing with asylum seekers (I linked to a paper on rhe topic upthread).

I would leave it to the experts to determine which models represent best practice (and the experts agree that our current system is inhumane), but I strongly believe that we should end the practice of indefinite detention.

WomanWithAltitude · 09/03/2016 13:52

what do you consider to be 'indefinite' and how long is too long?

Jesus wept - it's not about what i consider to be 'indefinite'. There's a legal definition. Look it up!

It is the practice of detaining someone without trial. It doesn't have to be for a specific time period. The simple fact that there is no maximum limit to the detention period makes it indefinite.

WomanWithAltitude · 09/03/2016 13:55

I should clarify that no other country uses it, to my knowledge, for immigration purposes.

There are other countries that use it for other purposes. (And those are recognises as contrary to human rights as well).

Icompletelyunderstand · 09/03/2016 13:55

But does the small print in the HRA say that indefinite detention means the detained individual cannot leave under any circumstances? Like being imprisoned without trial? Surely in the case of asylum claims the individual can leave detention so long as they opt to leave the UK? Is that the technical difference, or is the 'indefinite detention' being carried out at Yarls Wood recognised legally as an actual breach of human rights?

Or is it just the opinion of some people on this thread?

Icompletelyunderstand · 09/03/2016 13:56

sorry crossed posts, let me just absorb that info for a minute.

WomanWithAltitude · 09/03/2016 13:58

Do your own research - I'm out, because this conversation is pointless.

But suffice to say, it's not just my opinion that it's a human rights abuse.

Icompletelyunderstand · 09/03/2016 14:02

It is the practice of detaining someone without trial. It doesn't have to be for a specific time period. The simple fact that there is no maximum limit to the detention period makes it indefinite.

Okay, thank you. But they are not on trial, are they? They are not being imprisoned accused of a crime. They are being held because they do not have the right to free movement around the UK while their claims for asylum are being assessed. They are free to leave if they opt to leave the UK. Presumably some of them are there for years because their lawyers keep lodging appeal after appeal to stop them being deported, because their claim for asylum is not upheld, but if I am wrong then tell me.

WomanWithAltitude · 09/03/2016 14:06

Sorry but you're wrong. Immigration detention in the UK is defined as indefinite. Not just by me. By human rights lawyers, by the UNHCR, by the MPs who looked into the issue last year....

Like I said, do your research.

Icompletelyunderstand · 09/03/2016 14:11

I am doing it. This is it. You are here telling people what they should think and making statements of perceived fact. I am merely probing and asking questions in order to decide whether I should be agreeing with you or not.

WomanWithAltitude · 09/03/2016 14:14

For those who are interested, both Labour and the Lib Dems (neither of which I support incidentally) have pledged to end indefinite detention and limit the maximum period to 28 days, as well as ending the detention of pregnant women and other at risk groups.

This would address some of the issues raised in the OP and would be in accordance with the recommendations of the cross party group of MPs last year. It's only the conservatives who haven't committed to implement the recommendations.

It's something to think about for those whose vote might be influenced by this issue at the next election.

Icompletelyunderstand · 09/03/2016 14:15

So, back to the original guest post, what do those of you against 'indefinite detention' and holding PG women in Yarls Wood at all, think should be happening with PG women seeking asylum? What changes would you like to see to the system?

sportinguista · 09/03/2016 14:17

It appears people are generally detained for more than a year if they cannot be returned to country of origin (Somalia etc), they have no papers etc so cannot return or their country refuses to take them back. They are it appears unreturnable but they are not eligible for asylum necessarily. It's a bit of a quandry. I can understand why it's difficult to see what to do with them long term as it's basically the government have in these cases essentially hobson's choice but to eventually keep them and probably eventually give them leave to remain anyway. I don't agree with detaining forever etc but what do you do when someone's country decides they don't want them back?

sportinguista · 09/03/2016 14:19

I've posted some ideas which would be a good middle ground and make a difference I think for those involved. Dedicated teams, areas, counselling etc.

Add to that not leaving ex-detainees afloat once they do get out like Lucy above.

Icompletelyunderstand · 09/03/2016 14:19

So is the issue purely a huge processing backlog, or repeated appeals after having claims rejected, or what? I wonder if the newly proposed limit of 28 days means that all detainees should have gone through the assessment process in that time and either released into the UK to live or put on a plane back to wherever they came from. But I'm not sure how that allows or time to appeal.