

“During the inspection of Brook House Immigration Removal Centre near Gatwick Airport in October and November 2016, the inspection team found 23 individuals who had been detained for over a year. Four of these had been detained for over two years and the longest period of detention they found was two and a half years… the report provides further proof of the government’s failure to deliver detention reform, more than a year later after it was pledged by the Government.”This sentiment was echoed by MPs throughout Tuesday’s debate on the detention, which was secured by the efforts of MP Anne McLaughlin and her allies in parliament. People were tweeting at their MPs to encourage them to attend. While the focus of the debate was on the detention of vulnerable people, more of whom are in detention now than when the Shaw Review was published, MPs were strongly critical of the entire practice of immigration detention, in the overwhelming majority of cases where those incarcerated post no threat to the public. It was also pointed out that even the strongest individual can become extremely vulnerable when faced with the trauma of life in detention.


Reminder: what did the Shaw Review recommend?
- A presumption against detention for victims of rape or gender-based violence, people diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, people with learning difficulties, transexual people.
- A presumption against detention for people who are mentally ill, deleting the caveat in the policy guidance allowing for detention where the mental illness can be ‘satisfactorily managed in detention’.
- A recognition of the dynamic nature of vulnerability, extending the presumption against detention to peplpe ‘who are sufficiently vulnerable that their continued detention would be injurious to their welfare’.
- An absolute exclusion from detention of pregnant women.
- The replacement of the maligned and inffective Rule 35 procedure with an alternative manner of protecting from detention torture suvivors, suicidal people and others who are vulnerable, possibly involving independent external doctors.
- Consideration of introducing an independent element into detention decision-making.
- A strengthening of legal safeguards against ‘excessive length of detention’.
- The application of ‘much greater energy’ to exploring alternatives to detention, including community support.