My Lords, I rise to support the various amendments in this group, focused in particular on the case for a time limit and for the absolute exclusion from detention of pregnant women.
As has already been said, like the noble, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I was a member of the all-party parliamentary inquiry into detention. Unlike them, I knew very little about detention beforehand and so was perhaps the more shocked by what I heard from both professionals and people who had been detained. One message that hit me with particular force was the impact of detention on the mental health of detainees—we have heard a bit about that already. It is clear that this was true for Stephen Shaw, too. In his very fine report, he states at the outset that,
“the impact of detention upon detainees’ mental health, has been at the heart of this review. For that reason alone, it is not possible to distinguish the fact of detention from the consequences for welfare and vulnerability”.
He based this conclusion in part on a literature review by Professor Mary Bosworth, to which my noble friend Lord Rosser referred and which Shaw suggests was perhaps the “most important contribution” made by his report. He concludes that it,
“demonstrates incontrovertibly that detention in and of itself undermines welfare and contributes to vulnerability”.
Professor Bosworth’s review found a clear link between duration of detention and mental health outcomes. She also points to qualitative studies that indicate that the uncertainty arising from no time limit creates additional difficulties, and concludes that in the absence of clinical studies,
“it is clear at the very least that uncertainty makes detention more difficult”.
That resonates with what we heard in our inquiry. For instance, Dr Robjant of the Helen Bamber Foundation told us that its clients talk about it increasing their sense of hopelessness and despair.
Despite the restrictions placed on his remit, Stephen Shaw raised serious questions about numbers detained, the length of detention, the impact of the unknown length of detention on vulnerability, and the need for alternatives. He emphasises from the outset that his recommendations, in themselves, do not go far enough. We must take seriously what in my view is a clear steer that we need to go beyond recommendations designed to mitigate the “diswelfares” associated with detention, important as they are, and address the underlying question of the role of detention itself, and in particular the question of the absence of a set time limit on its duration.
Since the parliamentary inquiry’s report, the UN Human Rights Committee has recommended that the UK introduce a time limit. In oral evidence to the Public Bill Committee on this Bill, a representative of the UNHCRC stated that his one wish would be the introduction of a time limit on detention—which, he underlined, was within the scope of the Bill. In addition to the unanimous vote in the other place in support of our inquiry which has already been mentioned, there was strong support for a time limit when the report was debated in your Lordships’ House in March, including from the former Home Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, who deemed it “deeply unsatisfactory” that detainees,
“have no certainty in their lives about when they might be removed from detention”.—[Official Report, 26/3/15; col. 1569.]
This point was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who said that,
“it is worse than that, because it deprives people of hope”.—[Official Report, 26/3/2015; col. 1578.]
We have heard other arguments in favour of a time limit, which I shall not go into. Let us now use the opportunity of this Bill to provide hope for migrants and asylum seekers deprived of their liberty by a detention system shown to be deeply unsatisfactory by legislating for a time limit and encouraging the Government to develop effective community alternatives.
9.15 pm
I turn to Amendment 216ZC, which incorporates Shaw’s recommendations concerning presumption against detention. I thank the Minister for responding to our March debate by extending Shaw’s remit to include pregnant women and women who have been subject to rape or sexual violence. I applaud Stephen Shaw for the clear lead that he gave on this, including his recommendation that there should be an absolute exclusion of pregnant women, not just, as now, a presumption against exclusion. The recommendation
was based in part on the evidence of the damaging impact of detention on the health of pregnant women and their unborn children, submitted by the Royal College of Midwives and Medical Justice, among others. In fact, Medical Justice published a report on the matter in 2013 and, in the foreword, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists declared that it was unacceptable that pregnant asylum seekers were being incarcerated. The study concluded that current policy is ineffective, unworkable and damaging.
Like the Medical Justice study, the Shaw review found that the Home Office policy of a presumption against the detention of pregnant women is not being implemented properly. Mr Shaw was told by HM Inspectorate of Prisons that there is little to suggest that pregnant women are being detained only in exceptional circumstances. This was the finding of the parliamentary inquiry, too. The Shaw review also found that it is very rare for the detention of pregnant women to result in removal.
The ministerial Statement in response to Shaw, described by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, as a miserable response, did not make clear the Government’s response to his recommendation on pregnant women, but the implication seemed to be that it had not been accepted. So I tabled a Written Question that asked whether the Government had accepted the recommendation and, if not, why not. The reply was that the Government’s position on the Shaw review was set out in the ministerial Statement—as if I had not read it—and that its recommendations, including on pregnant women, would be taken into account as they developed arrangements for the proposed adults at risk policy. The term “taken into account” is rather vague, so the response is disappointing and really not good enough.
Stephen Shaw’s report was dated September. I do not know when it was actually handed in, but it cannot have taken that long to print, even though it is a very substantial report. So it really should be possible to give us a clear yes or no answer as to the Government’s response to this important recommendation. I therefore ask the Minister to do so now. I very much hope that it will be a yes. If it should be a no, I trust that he will provide a clear explanation so that we can assess whether this is an issue to which we want to return at Report.