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

[MumsnetGuestPosts]

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

I agree with the recommendations made last year. I do not believe pregnant women should be detained and they should therefore have the process managed as swiftly as possible while they are in the community. They should have their basic needs (food, clothing, housing, health care etc) met while we assess the claim.

For the small number of asylum seekers who we may need to detain, this should be done only when absolutely necessary, for a maximum of 28 days, and they should be treated humanely while in detention. Again, claims should be processed as swiftly as practicable.

That is the standard I'd like to see the UK achieving.

sorry, crossed posts again sports yes what you say makes perfect sense re: why some detainees find themselves in limbo.

Then recommendations in the report on this website accord with my views:

detentioninquiry.com

Okay Woman so do you acknowledge that if we did that then there would be a huge incentive for women to make sure they get pregnant before arriving here to claim asylum? Especially if they suspect they are unlikely to have their claim upheld? And do you acknowledge that some women would disappear, with or without their babies?

Would you advocate housing them in some sort of pregnant women's asylum hostel where they are monitored but basically free to come and go as they please, or would you house them directly within the general community on an ad hoc basis?

For the small number of asylum seekers who we may need to detain, this should be done only when absolutely necessary, for a maximum of 28 days, and they should be treated humanely while in detention. Again, claims should be processed as swiftly as practicable.

I understand why that makes perfect sense in theory and I also understand why, for all the reasons sport outlined a few posts back, it is not always possible in practice.

The key phrase being 'processed as quickly as practicable.'

If they destroy their papers and nationality cannot be proven and their own (assumed) countries don't want them back, what do we do after 28 days? Let them out? Put them on a rocket to the moon? Float them out to sea? What?

emilybohemia Wed 09-Mar-16 13:06:51

Isis have perverted and distorted Islam, not interpreted it

No thats simply not a true statement.

'we can become christian, become lapsed christian, or leave Christianity FREELY. The same cannot be said of Islam.

"Bit of an unsubstantiated claim to say the least."

www.amazon.com/Leaving-Islam-Apostates-Speak-Out/dp/1591020689

n the West abandoning one's religion (apostasy) can be a difficult, emotional decision, which sometimes has social repercussions. However, in culturally diverse societies where there is a mixture of ethnic groups and various philosophies of life, most people look upon such shifts in intellectual allegiance as a matter of personal choice and individual right. By contrast, in Islam apostasy is still viewed as an almost unthinkable act, and in orthodox circles it is considered a crime punishable by death. Renowned scholar of Islamic Studies Bernard Lewis described the seriousness of leaving the Islamic faith in the following dire terms: "Apostasy was a crime as well as a sin, and the apostate was damned both in this world and the next. His crime was treason ù desertion and betrayal of the community to which he belonged, and to which he owed loyalty; his life and property were forfeit. He was a dead limb to be excised."

"Defying the death penalty applicable to all apostates in Islam, the ex-Muslims who are here represented feel it is their duty to speak up against their former faith, to tell the truth about the fastest growing religion in the world. These former Muslims, from all parts of the Islamic world, recount how they slowly came to realize that the religion into which they were born was in many respects unbelievable and sometimes even dangerous"

"These memoirs of personal journeys to enlightenment and intellectual freedom make for moving reading and are a courageous signal to other ex-Muslims to come out of the closet."

I dont want to derail or hog this thread.

I could produce loads of info but I don't think its necessary. most people tend to know this sort of stuff, they see the news and keep up to date with the media.

No, I don't. Because if detention was only done in a small minority of cases, when absolutely necessary, and nobody was detained for over 28 days, being pregnant wouldn't really be much of an advantage, would it? It's not a huge incentive at all.

As I say, I'd leave it to those with more expertise to decide what the best practice model would be, whether that was a hostel or something else.

Well I can confirm that currently, both of those 2 options already occur, Icompletely.

The volunteer work I do includes working with another agency that provides housing for pregnant refugees. The most vulnerable go into a hostel and those who speak more English or already have a child are found homes locally - though many of them then end up in an accidental ghetto of no-ones devising. They often fight to be rehomed in the hostels.

Not all of them have had their status confirmed and they are free to live, take benefits, food bank supplies, clothing etc, but not to work or leave the area to live elsewhere.

I'd leave it to those with more expertise to decide what the best practice model would be, whether that was a hostel or something else.

So you are worried about the lack of something that already happens?

But if virtually no-one was held in detention other than a very dodgy minority we suspect may represent a security risk, then literally thousands and thousands of people a week would go AWOL and straight into the black hole. That can't be allowed to happen, surely?

If they destroy their papers and nationality cannot be proven and their own (assumed) countries don't want them back, what do we do after 28 days? Let them out? Put them on a rocket to the moon? Float them out to sea? What?

This might be a crazy idea, but maybe we could get some experts to look at the processes used elsewhere, review how they work and implement the best practice model? There is lots of material out there on the alternatives to detention. You could start by looking at the UNHCR link I posted upthread, and then maybe look at the inquiry report I posted? Just a thought.

Nowhere else detains asylum seekers in the way we do.

Lots of places don't even take them at all Woman

What do you mean ourblanche?

I am worried about the detention of pregnant women. Which is currently happening.

I am worried about indefinite detention, which is currently happening.

I've been very clear.

The fact that there are already hostels etc. doesn't change the fact that the issues in the op are happening.

Icompletely asked if I advocated hostels and I explained that I was happy for the process to be determined by those with expertise, in accordance with what J outlined above. I don't advocate hostels or anything else specifically, but I do advocate complying with human rights standards.

No, you link to great tracts of information, tell people to do their own research - and again link to a great tract of inforation then say you have no idea and will leave it tothe experts to decide what to do... but thing a hostel arrangement woud be a good thing.

I did post that the hostel idea is already in place, round here at least and now you are ignoring that to re-make your point, the one that you cannot supply any thought on workable alternatives for.

I think I shall remain here in my little rural backwater and actually help refugess rather than pop onto a website and shout my cant from the rooftops.

I am sorry, I believe you mean well, but your information is restricted and you are remonstrating with people merely for not thinking as you do, depsite that not being very clear other than you don't like something. It is offputting and, as I said way upthread, can be counterproductive for the very people you are so concerned for.

I never said a hostel would be good? I said "I'd leave it to those with more expertise to decide what the best practice model would be, whether that was a hostel or something else." That's pretty clear imo.

I don't have to supply workable alternatives in order to know that we should be upholding human rights and to support the campaign in the OP. The fact is that there are alternatives, and the UK has the freedom to implement them.

I've linked to a mixture of sources, including our own parliament and the UN. If you're not interested then that's fine. Don't read them.

'No, you link to great tracts of information, tell people to do their own research - and again link to a great tract of inforation'

and the problem is?

What is your resistance to 'great tracts of information'?

Well, I don't have time to read 450ish pages of EU documentation.

This is a discussion forum.

You could at least supply some idea of what you do think would be a good idea. That's what discussions and debates do.

And, if you had read my last couple of posts, you would see that far from not being interested I am working alongside agencies that work directly with pregnant refugees (and lots of other people too), work which I have posted about before, in case you suspect the veracity of that statement

I am inclined to agree with OurBlanche actually, having a fixed view about what should happen is all very well but you need to be able to articulate how you think it can be achieved and have some solutions to all the obvious flaws in the plan.

So far we've had:

I never said no-one should be detained ever, I never said everyone should be allowed in and allowed to stay, I just said we shouldn't detain PG women, irrespective of their country of origin and their likelihood of having their claim upheld. It's inhumane.

Won't that incentivise women from all over the place to get PG before they arrive to claim asylum without sufficient grounds?

No because apart from a small minority of dodgy types we shouldn't really be detaining anyone, so if the vast majority were not detained there would be no incentive to get PG would there?

So if the vast majority were not detained, thousands of people (particularly lone young men) would arrive every month or even every week and go straight under the radar - literally anyone who isn't wearing an I LOVE ISIS t-shirt and who can cobble together the cost of a plane ticket will arrive and be immediately released into the UK while they await processing.

Just how do you propose we manage that scenario?

It appears though that there is a committee looking at it all from one of your posts. So something is happening. Or isn't it? I'm confused as to whether the issue in the OP is being currently looked at, or considering Blanche has indicated that there is some provision, is there just not enough to go round and this just needs to be increased?

What is your resistance to 'great tracts of information'?

whats yours?

I am not sure about the committee, sorry, but I volunteer for a food bank and a health outreach - they provide me with more than enough government bumf to read

But... one problem with all hostel provision, for ex cons, asylum seekers, women, men, kids, cats or dog, is that someone will eventually complain. Some communities will take more direct action. With other housing there is often a lack of joined up support, mainly due to a lack of funds, staffing etc. Add to that the practice of 'placing like with like' and you suddenly get an area that has a great % of pregnant asylum seekers... and the local services just can't cope. Some women get moved... somewhere where there is no one they can connect with, some of them just disappear (God only knows where to) others fight to move back to a hostel or their old area, where they at least know someone.

There is not the local infrastructure, funding or will to provide more. Which is, I am guessing, why there is another committee having another look att he issue!

Sporting - the committee has finished it's work, but it's recommendations have so far not been implemented by the government. Labour and the Lib Dems supported the recommendations though.

I have said above that my views accord with the outcome of that review, which makes a number of recommendations about what should be done. There's an executive summary on the website.

Have a heart - just bloody outline some of them. I appreciate that as an ex teacher I have a tendency to include far too much info, but to just point 'over there' is too far the other way!

The Guardian article I linked to bullet pointed them and provided a very easy to read summary.