“I felt that very same fire that tortured me back then… asylum seeking is beyond recognition.” Foura*, who is currently seeking asylum in the UK, has experienced a “hell of agony” as a survivor of child abuse and human trafficking. But under the current iteration of the Nationalities and Borders Bill, now at the committee stage in the House of Lords, experts warn it may be even harder for women like Foura to make a successful asylum claim, as the bill offers no clear provision for gender-specific asylum procedures. According to the Red Cross, such a policy would contravene the UN refugee convention—and a network of human rights lawyers, NGOs and the UN Refugee Agency in the UK (UK-UNHCR) are opposed to the bill.
Our asylum system is already, as Priscilla Dudhia of Women for Refugee Women describes it, “a very complex and hostile system that fails to believe experiences of persecution.” In a comprehensive report issued by the Red Cross and Voices Network last month, women who have sought asylum in the UK describe intimidation, dangerous accommodation, social isolation, and a half-life of near destitution.
The ordeals of all asylum-seekers deserve the highest levels of support. But a fair asylum system would accommodate the particular needs of women, who account for around 43 per cent of asylum seekers in the UK. In 2020, Women for Refugee Women estimated that 78 per cent of the women they supported had fled gender-based violence—including honour-based violence, rape, FGM and sex trafficking—in their countries of origin.
Despite the prevalence of such experiences, many survivors report a “culture of disbelief” in the Home Office. One woman quoted in the Red Cross report recalls her interviewing officer saying: “no, you were not sexually violated… You were not exposed to the things that you’re telling me, it’s not true.”
UK-UNHCR and the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association have raised concerns that under the proposed Nationalities and Borders Bill, meeting the criteria for a successful asylum claim on the grounds of sexual or domestic violence will become even harder. Previously, victims of gender-based violence could claim asylum due to belonging to a “particular social group” in the UN refugee convention—which could be proved under the legal definition of belonging to a “group of persons who share an innate characteristic, or a common background that cannot be changed,” or alternatively “a group that has a distinct identity in the relevant country because it is perceived as being different by the surrounding society.”
Now, however, the newly drafted Clause 32 requires that asylum seekers meet both definitions in order to make a successful claim, which will make a “heightened test,” according to Dudhia, for asylum applications. Under this Clause, asylum seekers will have to provide evidence not only of persecution due to their innate characteristics, such as being subject to gender-based violence, but also persecution in relation to their status within the country—an evaluation of the society they live in—for example, female victims of domestic violence being perceived differently by the surrounding society. In a joint statement, ILPA and Women for Refugee Women emphasise that this will disproportionately impact women and girls fleeing gender-based violence.
This change was rushed through without scrutiny by legal groups, let alone feedback from people with asylum-seeking backgrounds. The Human Rights barristers’ chambers Garden Court Chambers believes it to be incompatible with existing UK policy and international standards on refugee protection.
What, then, could a fairer and more humane asylum system for women look like?
Dudhia says it is essential that the Home Office “reminds itself of the humanitarian objectives of the refugee convention.” On a practical level, she emphasises the importance of “mental health support, proper legal advice, and much more of an understanding of gender-based trauma.” This approach chimes with the Red Cross’s recommendations that all women should have access to female officers and interviewers during the asylum claim process, and that all casework staff are trained in trauma response.
For Newcastle-upon-Tyne charity Action Foundation, the evidence for a community-based alternative to detention centres is clear. Its recent project, “Action Access,” developed with UNHCR and the Home Office, housed 20 women in a community setting in Derwentside. As the women’s initial asylum claims had been refused, they would otherwise have remained in Yarl’s Wood detention centre. Instead, they received a weekly payment of £38 and access to legal advice. The findings were unequivocal: “participants experienced more stability and better health and wellbeing outcomes.” By contrast, McAuley highlights that the Nationalities and Borders Bill would see “an increased use in institutional accommodation… making the process and future options for those seeking asylum materially worse.”
Community, decent accommodation, gender-specific trauma counselling, access to legal advice, putting women with experience of the asylum system at the centre of projects and policies—these are the routes to a safer and more humane process of female asylum claims. The experts have spoken: whether or not government will listen is yet to be seen.
