Supplementary written evidence from Women for Refugee Women (EAP0029)

EAP0026

EAP0003

Derwentside detention centre

About Women for Refugee Women

Women for Refugee Women (WRW) is a charity that works with women seeking asylum in the UK to challenge the injustices of the asylum system.

Introduction to and summary of submission

• WRW’s earlier evidence to this inquiry, submitted in November 2021, documented the significant harms of immigration detention for women, highlighting that our research over many years has shown the devastating impact of being detained on women’s mental health.
• Additionally, our earlier evidence highlighted the pointless nature of detention. Detention’s stated purpose is removal from the UK – yet figures we recently obtained from the Home Office show that in 2021, more than 90% of asylum-seeking women leaving detention were released back into the community to continue with their cases. Just eight per cent of asylum-seeking women leaving detention were removed from the UK. This is consistent with previous years’ figures.[1]
• Our earlier evidence highlighted that, while the number of women detained is currently at an historic low, and despite the fact that the Home Office has piloted an innovative ‘alternative to detention’ for women seeking asylum,[2] the government planned to open a new detention centre for women in County Durham.
• Unfortunately this new detention centre, Derwentside, opened on 28th December 2021. In this evidence therefore we build on our previous submission, by highlighting some of the specific issues we have come across while supporting women in Derwentside.
• These issues include:

-          The use of notices of intent for removal to Rwanda for women;

-          Difficulties for women in accessing in-person legal advice visits from solicitors;

-          The continuing failure of the Adults at Risk policy in preventing women who are vulnerable from being detained, including victims of trafficking; and

-          Concerns about the use of male officers in inappropriate situations.

• The Home Office’s decision to open a new detention centre for women remains inexplicable. Since 2018 the number of women in detention has been falling steadily, with the most recent figures showing that at the end of June 2022 there were just 75 women in detention.[3] The low number of women currently detained means the Home Office could end women’s detention immediately, and focus on resolving their cases in the community, including through the use of alternatives to detention.

Women arriving in the UK by boat and notices of intent for removal to Rwanda

1. Since late May 2022 we have spoken to a number of women from Albania and Vietnam who have arrived in the UK by boat, been detained on arrival and taken to Derwentside. These women have been very confused and distressed, and have spoken very little English, which adds to the disorientation and stress they are experiencing.
    
2. Three women we have spoken to who have arrived in the UK by boat and been detained on arrival have subsequently been given notices of intent for removal to Rwanda. All three women have been recognised by the Home Office as potential victims of trafficking, having received positive reasonable grounds decisions following referral into the National Referral Mechanism (NRM). All three women were given notices of intent after receiving their positive reasonable grounds decision. They have also all now been released from detention.
    
3. We have been extremely concerned by the effect of notices of intent for Rwanda on women. One woman, for instance, was given her notice of intent during the weekend, when it was difficult for her to contact her solicitor – which is particularly problematic given that notices of intent have to be responded to within just seven calendar days. She was hugely distressed by the threat of being removed to Rwanda and could not understand why, given all she had been through, the Home Office were saying this was an appropriate course of action for her case. Very quickly her mental health deteriorated significantly.[4]
   
4. Fortunately, the women we have spoken to who have received notices of intent have all been legally represented at the time of receiving them. However, it is important to be aware that legal advice surgeries take place at Derwentside just twice a week, on Tuesdays and Fridays. While we understand this reflects the fact that Derwentside has a smaller capacity than most men’s detention centres, the relative lack of frequency of legal advice surgeries is likely to cause problems for women who are given notices of intent, but do not already have a legal representative.
    
5. As highlighted above, notices of intent have to be responded to within seven calendar days. If a woman does not already have a solicitor, it will be difficult for her to get a legal advice appointment, secure legal representation, and ensure that the notice of intent is responded to within the seven-day timeframe.
    
6. There may of course be more women who have been given notices of intent, to whom we have not spoken. A written parliamentary question tabled in July 2022 asked about the total number of women in detention who have been given notices of intent thus far, but the Home Office responded that it was not yet able to provide this information.[5]

Difficulties accessing in-person legal visits from solicitors

7. Under the Detained Duty Advice Scheme (DDAS), people in detention are entitled to a 30-minute appointment with a solicitor from a legal aid firm. During this meeting the solicitor assesses the person’s case and decides if they can take it on. Each detention centre has its own DDAS rota, with a number of legal aid providers contracted to provide advice to people detained there.
    
8. The Legal Aid Agency opened the procurement process for the DDAS at Derwentside in July 2021. However, in November 2021 it announced that this process had been cancelled, as a result of receiving insufficient compliant tenders. Instead, ‘contingency arrangements’ for legal advice at Derwentside were put in place, to operate from 1st January to 30th June 2022 at least.[6]
    
9. Under these contingency arrangements, some legal aid firms that deliver advice in Yarl’s Wood were also contracted to provide legal advice in Derwentside. Many of these firms are based in London, which is over five hours away from Derwentside by car and three and a half to four hours away by public transport. Consequently, for the first six months that Derwentside was operating, DDAS appointments there only took place remotely i.e. over the phone or via videocall. A response to a written parliamentary question highlighted that between 1st January and 23rd June 2022, around two thirds (109 of 172) of DDAS appointments at Derwentside took place by phone, and about a third (63 of 172) by videocall.[7]
   
10.            During this period there were also very few in-person follow-up legal visits to women in Derwentside, by solicitors who had taken on their cases. A response to a written parliamentary question showed that between 1st January and 26th May 2022, just five in-person follow-up visits to Derwentside took place.[8]
     
11.            As highlighted in our previous submission to this inquiry, many women in detention are survivors of rape and other gender-based violence. For our 2017 report We Are Still Here, for instance, we interviewed 26 asylum-seeking women who were currently or recently detained. Twenty-two of these women (85%) said they were survivors of rape, domestic violence, forced marriage, forced prostitution or FGM.[9]
     
12.            Survivors of such violence experience significant and particular difficulties disclosing what has happened to them. Many women we have spoken to have said they felt too ashamed to talk about their previous experiences. This resonates with research conducted by Asylum Aid and the British Red Cross.[10] Indeed, the Home Office’s own guidance on Gender Issues in the Asylum Claim states: ‘There may be a number of reasons why a claimant … may be reluctant to disclose information, for example feelings of guilt, shame, and concerns about family “honour”, or fear of family members or traffickers, or having been conditioned or threatened by them.’[11]
     
13.            It is our experience that speaking with women in person is critical to building rapport and developing a relationship with them, so that they feel able to trust the person they are talking to and open up about previous experiences of rape and other gender-based violence. Thus, being denied access to in-person legal advice exacerbates the difficulties women face in disclosing their previous experiences.
    
14.            Non-, partial or ‘late’ disclosure of their previous experiences can have damaging consequences for women in detention. For instance, it can mean they are not identified as a victim of trafficking, and/or as having a valid asylum claim. Consequently, women’s need for protection may not be recognised, and they will face removal from the UK back to an unsafe situation. It can also mean women are not recognised as ‘at risk’ under the Adults at Risk policy (discussed in more detail below), which can delay their release and result in protracted periods of detention.
     
15.            In February 2022 we launched a legal challenge against the Home Office, which argued that the failure to provide in-person legal advice at Derwentside created a real risk of hindering women’s access to effective legal advice and representation. Our challenge also argued that the remote legal advice provision at Derwentside discriminated against women, because in-person legal advice is available in men’s detention centres. The response to the written parliamentary question referred to in paragraph 10, above, showed that while there were just five in-person legal visits to Derwentside between 1st January and 26th May 2022, during the same period at Harmondsworth, for example, there were 145, and at Brook House there were 126.[12]
     
16.            Following a court hearing in late June 2022 our legal challenge was not upheld. However, the Home Office appears to have acknowledged the importance of in-person legal advice, as just days before the hearing got underway they announced that in-person legal advice had been secured for Derwentside, to begin on 1st July 2022.
     
17.            We remain concerned about the extent to which in-person legal advice is available in practice at Derwentside, however. During the first week of the new contract we spoke to four women who had DDAS appointments, all of whom said these appointments had been via videocall. A response to a parliamentary question subsequently confirmed that no in-person DDAS appointments took place during the first week of the new contract.[13] A response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request that we submitted further highlighted that between 8th and 26th July 2022 there were just four in-person DDAS appointments at Derwentside, and no in-person follow-up visits.
    
18.            The response to the parliamentary question cited above, as well as to our FOI request, indicates that in-person DDAS appointments at Derwentside will only happen if they are specifically requested. We are very concerned if this is the case. Unless women are actively being made aware, in a language they understand, that they can request an in-person legal visit, it seems unlikely to us that they will ask for one, since they will not know this is possible.
    
19.            Moreover, since the three firms who hold the new legal advice contracts are based in Bradford, Coventry and Hounslow, all of which are hours away from Derwentside, we are concerned that in-person legal visits – either DDAS appointments or follow-up visits – are unlikely to happen on a routine basis. Indeed, as Derwentside is located in what the Law Society has identified as an immigration and asylum legal aid ‘desert’,[14] and so is very far from many legal aid providers, it also seems unlikely that firms outside of those who hold the new contracts are likely to make in-person visits.

The failure of the Adults at Risk policy to prevent the detention of vulnerable women

20.            The Adults at Risk (AAR) policy was introduced by the Home Office in 2016, following Stephen Shaw’s first review of vulnerable people detention. Under the AAR policy there is a ‘clear presumption’ against the detention of people identified as vulnerable, including survivors of sexual or other gender-based violence.[15]
     
21.            In its 2017 inspection of Yarl’s Wood, when this was still the main detention centre for women, HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) highlighted the failure of the AAR policy to ensure that vulnerable women were not being detained. In relation to its review of Rule 35 reports, which is the primary mechanism for identifying vulnerability in detention, HMIP stated: ‘The Rule 35 sample indicated that women were being detained despite professional evidence of torture, rape and trafficking, and in greater numbers than we have seen at previous inspections’ (emphasis ours).[16]
     
22.            Similarly, our 2017 report We Are Still Here, which focused on the AAR policy, highlighted that women were routinely being kept in Yarl’s Wood following Rule 35 reports which identified them as survivors of rape and other gender-based violence. The same pattern appears to be emerging at Derwentside. We have spoken to a number of women whose detention has been maintained even when the Home Office has accepted a Rule 35 assessment that they are ‘at risk’ – and even when the woman concerned is clearly deteriorating mentally and becoming even more vulnerable in detention.
     
23.            We are also concerned about the number of women who are given positive reasonable grounds decisions from the NRM and so recognised by the Home Office as potential victims of trafficking – but are not released at this point, but kept in detention. This reflects changes in the AAR guidance, which has made it more difficult for potential victims of trafficking to be released from detention.[17]
     
24.            All the women we have been in touch with who have been given positive reasonable grounds decisions, but kept in detention following this, have subsequently been released – usually following a pre-action letter from their solicitor, or a bail hearing. While these women have been very relieved to be released, their protracted and completely unnecessary detention has nonetheless caused them huge distress.

Concerns about the use of male officers in inappropriate situations

25.            One of the most significant issues we highlighted through our research on Yarl’s Wood was the complete lack of regard for women’s privacy and dignity there. Our 2015 report I Am Human showed how women were being subjected to pat-down body searches by male officers, or while male officers were present. Male staff were also searching women’s rooms.
     
26.            Additionally, women were routinely being watched in intimate situations by male staff. So, women who were deemed to be at risk of suicide, and placed on ‘constant supervision’ – meaning that they were watched at all times by detention centre staff – were being watched by male officers while they were showering, on the toilet, or getting undressed. When we initially raised these concerns with the Home Office they denied this was happening, and stated: ‘Male staff would not supervise women showering, dressing or undressing, even if on constant supervision through risk of self-harm.’[18]
     
27.            Yet HMIP’s subsequent report on Yarl’s Wood, published in late 2015, corroborated our findings.[19] Following this, the Home Office accepted HMIP’s recommendation that, in women’s detention centres, at least 60% of staff in direct contact with women should also be women – to ensure male staff are not used in inappropriate situations.[20] The Home Office also introduced guidance on women in detention, which explicitly states that male officers should not be used to watch women on constant supervision.[21]
     
28.            Despite this, the Home Office was vague in its commitments to ensure that the same harmful practices are not repeated at Derwentside. In the Equality Impact Assessment for Derwentside, for example, it was stated: ‘The workforce requirements … will include a ratio of female to male custodial staff that is appropriate for the specific needs of women in detention’.[22] However, it was not specified what this ratio would be. Similarly, when asked in a written parliamentary question whether 60 per cent of staff in direct contact with women would also be women, the Home Office responded: ‘It is our aim that around 60% of uniformed staff will be women’ (emphasis ours).[23]
     
29.            We do not have information on what proportion of officers at Derwentside are female. However, we were concerned by a recent conversation with a woman detained there, who told us that she was on constant supervision and at points she had been watched by a male officer. We accept of course that this is just one report. However, given the serious nature of the issue, we would encourage the Committee to look further into the use of male officers in inappropriate situations in Derwentside.

Additional issues

Long journeys to and from Derwentside

30.            Many of the women we have spoken to have experienced long journeys before arriving at Derwentside. For example, women living in London prior to being detained are initially held at the Sahara unit in Colnbrook detention centre, before then being moved to Manchester short-term holding facility (STHF), and finally arriving at Derwentside about five to seven days later.
     
31.            We have also spoken to several women who have been moved back to Manchester STHF, and subsequently Colnbrook, in preparation for their removal, because they have been given removal directions. However, if these removal directions are subsequently cancelled they are then moved back to Derwentside. Having to go through these lengthy journeys multiple times can be distressing for women.
     
32.            Another problem for women who are moved back to Manchester STHF, then Colnbrook, in preparation for their removal, is that during the time they are being moved they do not have access to their phone. As such they are out of contact with their solicitors for many hours at a time, at a critical point in their case.

Visits from and contact with family and friends

33.            Some women in Derwentside have told us it is very hard for family and friends who are in the UK to visit them. This is because of Derwentside’s location: it takes too long, and is too expensive, for family and friends to make the journey there.
     
34.            We have seen this to some extent through our own experience of visiting women in Derwentside. While women were in Yarl’s Wood, we made regular social visits there. As a London-based organisation, however, it has been difficult for us to replicate this at Derwentside. The train journey from London to Durham takes about three hours, and the journey from Durham to Derwentside then takes a further 20-30 minutes (by car). Moreover, unless you are able to book weeks in advance, a return train ticket from London to Durham costs upwards of £150.
     
35.            As such, the support we have provided to women in Derwentside has primarily been by phone – and through this we also have first-hand knowledge of the problems with mobile phone reception there. The mobile reception appears to be very poor: we have frequently been cut off during conversations with women, or their phone goes straight to voicemail and it is necessary to call multiple times in order to reach them.
     
36.            A number of women have also told us they do not have reception at all in their rooms. Consequently, it can be very difficult to find a quiet and private space where they also have reception – in order, for instance, to speak to their solicitor; to charities such as WRW who are supporting them; or to family members and friends. Some women have said the only relatively private place where they have mobile reception is the outside area that they are allowed to access. This is clearly far from ideal: when we have spoken to women who are standing outside it has sometimes been difficult to hear them because it is very windy, and earlier on in the year it was also very cold, so women could not stand outside for long.

Separation from male family members who are also in detention

37.            We have been in touch with a couple of women who have been detained initially with their male partners and/or adult male children in Colnbrook. However, since the Sahara unit for women at Colnbrook is a short-term holding facility, women can usually only be held there for seven days.
    
38.            In both of these cases, then, the women concerned were subsequently sent to Derwentside, and so separated from their male family members, because there is currently no family unit in any detention centre in England. This separation was understandably very upsetting for them.

Recommendation

39.            As we highlighted in the introduction to this submission, the number of women in detention is currently at an historic low. Since 2018, the number of women detained has been falling steadily and – although there has been some increase since our previous submission to this inquiry – there are currently just 75 women in detention. This represents a reduction of more than 75% on ten years ago, when there were well over 300 women in detention.
     
40.            The significant reduction in the number of women detained is very welcome. However, the opening of Derwentside represents a backwards step and threatens the important progress that has been made. The low number of women currently detained means that ending women’s detention immediately is very much a practical possibility. Women’s cases can be resolved more humanely in the community, including through the use of alternatives to detention.

September 2022