Guidance

Equality impact assessment: detention on reporting

Updated 7 October 2025

Section 1: Detention on Reporting

This EIA has been drafted to consider the equality implications of Detentions on Reporting (DoR) DoR is when a person is detained at a reporting centre or police station during their reporting event.

The purpose of reporting is to ensure that those without leave to remain in the UK and illegal entrants remain in close contact with the Home Office. A reporting requirement of bail is used to enable case progression, interviews, compliance testing, offers of voluntary departure and travel document applications to be conducted to support removal actions. A person on a reporting regime will be considered for a variety of methods to report, including in person within a centre, or a combination of telephone reporting, digital bail or electronic monitoring.

DoR is the most efficient and lowest risk way of apprehending a named person who is imminently removable. In addition to not requiring an arrest team to conduct a visit to the person’s address, DoR in a controlled environment can be an effective option to mitigate perceived risks to the person being detained or the arrest team in high harm or medical risk cases. These operations are conducted by offender managers acting under Secretary of State authority.

The individual will be temporarily detained either in a holding room at the reporting centre, which operates under the Short-term Holding Facility Rules 2018 (SI 409/2018), as amended by The Short-term Holding Facility (Amendment) Rules 2022, and which can be found on the websites at:  www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/409/contents and www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/1345/introduction/made - where a detained person may be detained for a period of not more than 24 hours, unless a longer period of detention is authorised by the Secretary of State (in practice a Home Office official), or where that is not available taken to a police station. Whilst in the Short-Term Holding Facility the individual is permitted to communicate with external contacts in accordance with rule 28 (use of telephones) and may also consult their legal advisers by telephone.

The individual will be collected and transported to an Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) whilst arrangements are made for their removal from the UK. DoR can also be used to facilitate a face-to-face interview between the person concerned and an embassy official in order to secure an emergency travel document (ETD) where the document can be secured promptly and the individual swiftly removed from the UK

Section 2: Consideration of aim 1 of the duty: eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and any other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010.

Age:

Schedule 3 to the Equality Act 2010 permits exceptions in relation to functions exercised under certain immigration legislation in relation to age and nationality and ethnic or national origins. Its effect is that discrimination that is authorised or required by legislation and the Immigration Rules is not unlawful.

a. Direct discrimination

Reporting conditions as part of Immigration Bail do not apply to children under the age of 18, except for Unaccompanied Asylum Seeker Children (UASC) who may be asked to report between their 17th and 18th birthdays. This differentiation on the grounds of age is justifiable in order to fulfil the duty created by Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 to make arrangements for ensuring that immigration, asylum and nationality functions are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in the UK. Direct discrimination on the basis of age does apply, but it can be justified: it is proportionate, as reporting conditions only apply to over 18s.

DoRs would directly discriminate on the basis of age as above due to the policy above requiring only those over 18 unless an UASC to report. The exception to this would be if a family unit were required to report within the family returns process.

Additional consideration must also be given to the viability of detention for those over the age of 70, as per the Adults at Risk in Immigration Detention policy.^{[footnote 1]}

b. Indirect discrimination

No indirect discrimination has been identified on age grounds.

Disability:

For the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, disability is described as being: “A physical or mental impairment that has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ negative effect on an individual’s ability to carry out normal daily activities”. It will be a matter for the decision maker to ensure the person who is liable to report is physically and mentally fit enough to attend reporting and comply with a reporting condition, or if other forms of contact management will be more appropriate.

The Adults at risk in immigration detention policy strengthens the presumption against detention for vulnerable people considered to be vulnerable to harm in detention. Under the policy an individual considered to be at risk will only be detained, or their detention continued, where the immigration control considerations that apply in their particular case (for example, the likelihood and timeframe to removal or public protection considerations) outweigh any risk identified.

a. Direct discrimination

No direct discrimination has been identified; this policy applies equally to all regardless of their disabilities.

b. Indirect discrimination

We consider that there is indirect disability discrimination, as we understand that the policy may have differential impacts on individuals who share certain protected characteristics, and this includes the protected characteristic of disability. We consider that any differential impacts can be objectively justified given the overarching aim of removing those with no legal basis to remain in the UK.

We recognise that disability covers a wide spectrum of conditions, both physical and mental, and we have considered the range of issues this may engender for those who share certain disabilities. For example, we are aware that there may be constraints for individuals with learning disabilities or those with issues relating to mental capacity/illness, and return at that time, may not be appropriate in some cases. Any decision to detain an individual who suffers from a physical and/or mental impairment will be taken only where it is safe and reasonable to do so, in line with the Adults at Risk policy.

Reasonable adjustments

There is an additional duty under the Equality Act to make reasonable adjustments for a person who is placed at a substantial disadvantage because of their disability when compared to a person who does not share their disability. Prior to any DoR an interview will be undertaken to consider any mitigating circumstances, and the ROM manager will assess the detention on a case-by-case basis.

Discrimination arising from disability

Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 provides that a person A discriminates against a disabled person B if, A treats B unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of B’s disability, and A cannot show that the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

However, this does not apply if A shows that A did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that B had the disability.

All cases will be reviewed before a DoR, considering vulnerabilities and cancelled if needed.

Any new disability can be relayed to ROM Managers and reviewed.

Gender reassignment:

Under section 7 of the Equality Act 2010, an individual has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment where the person has proposed, started or completed a process to change their gender. This not only covers situations in which the individual has begun hormone treatment and/or gender reassignment surgery; Section 43 of the Act provides that the protected characteristic also applies in cases in which a person decides to spend the rest of their life in the opposite gender without seeking medical advice or without medical intervention.

The Home Office does not collate data on the number of transsexual people entering detention. However, anecdotally the number of transsexual, transgender and intersex people in immigration detention is known always to have been very small. Transsexual and intersex persons are listed in the AAR policy as being particularly vulnerable to harm in detention. There is therefore a presumption that transsexual individuals will not be detained until the point at which the immigration considerations are such that they outweigh any risk of harm identified if detained.

a. Direct discrimination

No direct discrimination has been identified this policy applies equally to all regardless of their gender reassignment.

b. Indirect discrimination

There is evidence to suggest that although a DoR would not have a disproportionate negative impact on this particular group when compared with others, they may be more vulnerable to harm in detention. Therefore, detention would only be contemplated where all other options had been considered.

Pregnancy and maternity:

a. Direct discrimination

The detention of pregnant women is specifically catered for in s60 Immigration Act 2016 and places an upward limit of 72 hours (up to 7 days with ministerial approval) in detention for women known to be pregnant. Accordingly, any woman confirmed to be pregnant shall be subject to thorough consideration for a DoR.

Detention Services Order 05/2016 - Care and Management of Pregnant Women in Detention states: A woman who is to be detained pending removal or deportation and who the Secretary of State is satisfied is pregnant may be detained only if the removal will take place shortly or there are exceptional circumstances to justify detention. In either case, the detention of such a pregnant woman may be for no more than 72 hours, although this may be extended up to a total of 7 days if authorised by a Minister. In addition, there is a duty to have regard to the welfare of the pregnant woman in determining whether to authorise detention.

The time limit on detention is calculated from one of two points: either from when the Secretary of State is first satisfied that the woman is pregnant; or from when the woman’s detention starts, whichever is the later point. If the Secretary of State is satisfied prior to or at the very outset of detention (at whatever location) that the woman is pregnant, the time limit will be calculated from the point the woman is first detained. Time spent under escort after this point will count towards the 72-hour limit. If the woman’s pregnancy only becomes confirmed or is confirmed after detention has begun, and the Secretary of State is not therefore satisfied until that point that the woman is pregnant, the time limit will be calculated from the point at which the Secretary of State is satisfied. Time spent in detention prior to the point that the Secretary of State is satisfied as to the pregnancy will not count towards the 72-hour limit. It is therefore vitally important that information about a claimed, suspected or confirmed pregnancy is passed promptly to the Home Office caseworker responsible for managing the woman’s case.

As such, it is considered there is no direct discrimination as a result of this operational process. The gatekeeper will be able to identify as soon as possible, when it is not appropriate to refer a pregnant woman.

b. Indirect discrimination

No indirect discrimination has been identified on grounds of pregnancy and maternity; however, thorough consideration should be used prior to a DoR for these cohorts. Should any pregnant woman wish to voluntarily return with the aid of the Secretary of State, these can be facilitated from outside detention and would have no bearing on this process.

Race:

The definition of race as a protected characteristic within the Equality Act 2010 includes reference to nationality. Any person without leave to remain in the UK, who meets the criteria set out in 1 (1) of Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016 can be placed on immigration bail. The cohort of people who are subject to immigration bail, is made up of non-UK nationals. Immigration control necessitates overseas nationals being subject to considerations not applicable to UK nationals and will inherently impact some nationalities disproportionately.

a. Direct discrimination

Potential direct impacts have been identified as shown below on the grounds of race or nationality. We note that immigration status is not a sub-set of nationality, so discriminating on the basis of immigration status is not unlawful as it falls within the exception under Sch 3 para 17 of the Equality Act 2010.

Where discrimination is a necessary part of a relevant function under the Immigration Acts there is an exception from the duty not to discriminate. Reporting policy discriminates on the basis of nationality, but this falls within the exception under Sch 3 para 17 as it is targeting specific nationalities, but only likely to refer for DOR individuals who are imminently removable in line with detention guidance.

Performance figures suggest that five nationalities make up the vast majority of DoRs (India, Albania, Brazil, Pakistan, and Nigeria).

b. Indirect discrimination

We assess that there may also be indirect discrimination in the operation of the policy, and specific cohorts of interest.

If the individual on bail cannot speak English or struggle with communications in English assistance is available. If needed an interpreter can be available to assist all individuals during their DoR.

It is known that there will be higher numbers of some nationalities subject to DoR because statistically the top five nationalities are India (16%), Albania (14%), Brazil (9%), Pakistan (7%), and Nigeria (7%).

There may be an indirect impact based on ethnicity because ethnicity can correlate with nationality. Any indirect impact on ethnicity is as a result of the nationality and is therefore reasonable and proportionate in ensuring officials are able to effectively conduct planned activity. Owing to the focus on returning those nationals where we enjoy good diplomatic relationships, there may be a decrease in the volumes of individuals requiring scheduled flights to return.

We consider that any indirect discrimination arising from DoRs with regards to this protected characteristic represents a proportionate means of achieving the policy aims as outlined above.

Religion or Belief:

Individuals are not prescribed, or excluded, from DoR by virtue of their religion or belief. Any individual who falls within the categories of persons identified for reporting may in tasked for a DoR regardless of religion or belief (or absence of it).

The Home Office does not collate data on the religion of those subject to DoR and will not be aware of a person’s religion unless they choose to disclose it.

a. Direct discrimination

No direct discrimination has been identified this policy applies equally to all regardless of their religion or belief.

b. Indirect discrimination

No indirect discrimination has been identified on grounds of religion or belief as the Home Office would not be aware of an individual’s religion unless they chose to disclose it.

Sex:

Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016 and immigration bail policy do not exclude any persons from being subject to reporting and therefore likelihood to be tasked for a DoR by virtue of their sex – all genders are equally eligible for a DoR.

a. Direct discrimination

No direct discrimination has been identified; this policy applies equally to all regardless of their sex.

b. Indirect discrimination

It is acknowledged that more males will be subject to reporting than females and so will be disproportionately impacted, because statistically more males than females arrive via illegal and dangerous routes. In the year ending June 2023, 87% of those who arrived via illegal and dangerous routes were male. Since data on arrivals of this kind have been recorded, male arrivals are consistently above 80% of all arrivals. There is also more capacity in the detention estate to accommodate males compared to females, as such more may be referred for a DoR event. The final decision on whether there is an exemption from conducting a DoR will be determined on a case-by-case basis, examining personal circumstances and detention estate capacity, but sex will not be a determining factor within this consideration.

Any perceived indirect discrimination is considered justifiable as it is proportionate in order to achieve a legitimate aim of swiftly removing those in the UK with no permission to stay. 

Sexual Orientation:

The Home Office does not collate data on the number of people tasked for a DoR broken down by sexual orientation. There is no evidence to suggest that a DoR would have any differential impact on individuals because of their sexual orientation.

a. Direct discrimination

No direct discrimination has been identified; this policy applies equally to all regardless of their sexual orientation.

b. Indirect discrimination

There is no evidence to suggest that a DoR would have a disproportionate negative impact on this particular group when compared with others as the Home Office would not be aware of a person’s sexual orientation unless they chose to disclose it. Therefore, we do not consider that any indirect discrimination arises with regards to this protected characteristic.

Marriage or Civil Partnership:

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman or between a same-sex couple. Same-sex and heterosexual couples can also have their relationships legally recognised as ‘civil partnerships’. Civil partners must not be treated less favourably than married couples (except where permitted by the Equality Act)

a. Direct discrimination

This policy will apply to all regardless of marriage or civil partnership, we have not identified any direct discrimination based on this protected characteristic.

b. Indirect discrimination

No indirect discrimination has been identified on the basis of marriage or civil partnerships. Consideration will be given to existing partnerships and where necessary family splits authorised.

Section 3: Consideration of aim 2 of the duty: Advancing equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it.

All cases tasked for a DoR are considered on a case-by-case basis and suitability for detention assessed. Any risks linked to protected characteristics will be assessed prior to the detention during tasking, at the mitigating circumstance interview and then again by the detention gatekeeper at the point of referral into the detention estate.

There is an existing presumption in immigration policy that a person will not be detained. The adults at risk in immigration detention policy strengthens this presumption. A person considered vulnerable under this guidance may be detained only where the immigration factors in their particular case outweigh the risk factors. Although there is no statutory time limit on immigration detention in the UK, it is not lawfully possible to detain people indefinitely. Domestic case law is clear that, where a person is being detained to affect their removal, the detention power can be exercised lawfully only if there is a realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable timeframe.

In all cases in which an individual is being considered for immigration detention, an assessment must first be made of whether the individual is an ‘adult at risk’ in the terms of this policy and, if so, the level of evidence (based on the available evidence, which may be limited to the individual’s account) indicating the level of the policy into which they fall. If the individual is considered to be at risk, a further assessment will be made of whether the immigration considerations outweigh any risk identified. Only when they do will the individual be detained.

Section 4: Consideration of aim 3 of the duty: Fostering good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

The Home Office does not foresee DoRs causing detrimental relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. Decisions on the detention of an individuals who share protected characteristics and those who do not are made by the Home Office prior to reporting events, in line with Home Office published detention policy and taking full account of the individual factors that apply in each individual case.

Section 5: Ongoing compliance with the PSED.

The home office monitor detentions on reporting, collecting data on those that are successful or not. Detention services share weekly updates on the capacity at the detention estates and any restrictions on their intake.

Adults at risk policy ensures all vulnerabilities are considered thoroughly.

But within the data captured there are limitations to all protected characteristics, with the exception of age, race and sex, as the Home Office would not be aware of some protected characteristics unless they chose to disclose them.

Section 6: Section 55 duty (for immigration, asylum, and nationality considerations only).

The need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the UK has been considered. Children are not required to report therefore would not individually be subject to a DoR. Within a family unit there is a dedicated team with rigid guidelines and policy to follow prior to detaining a family unit. The reporting centre would be tasked to detain a family once this had been agreed by an independent panel.

Where needed to separate a family unit, the family split will be considered and authorised by a G7, further scrutiny will be taken by the detention gatekeeper prior to their agreement to accept into the detention estate.

Section 7: Risks to vulnerable individuals and other groups (*if applicable).

In all cases in which an individual is being considered for immigration detention, an assessment must first be made of whether the individual is an ‘adult at risk’ in the terms of this policy and, if so, the level of evidence (based on the available evidence, which may be limited to the individual’s account) indicating the level of the policy into which they fall. If the individual is considered to be at risk, a further assessment will be made of whether the immigration considerations outweigh any risk identified. Only when they do will the individual be detained.

Within the DoR process there are 5 parts to protect vulnerabilities:

• At the time of assessing a tasking request, an officer would check all the details on a case to ensure there were no reasons not to detain the individual.
• Prior to a DoR, a mitigating circumstance interview is conducted to address any changes in personal situations, medical history or recent changes preventing the detention.
• All individuals are always offered the opportunity to voluntarily depart prior to being detained.
• Any detention papers are also served on a legal representative (where there is one on record), this ensures that all details are fully understood.
• Within the referral process to the detention gatekeeper, a thorough check would also be made of all details to ensure detention was suitable.

Section 8: Declaration and sign off.

I have read the available evidence, and I am satisfied that this demonstrates compliance, where relevant, with section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 and that due regard has been had to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations.

This EIA will be reviewed on: 01/04/2026

1. Adults at risk in immigration detention ↩