Concerns found include increase of self-harm, prison-like living accommodation, and blocking of websites such as Amnesty International
Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons on Tuesday released a comprehensive report following an unannounced inspection of the G4S-run Brook House Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) at Gatwick.
Image credit: UK GovernmentYou can read the 130-page report here.
Peter Clarke, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, noted that the report comes in the continuing wake of the 2017 exposé of abuse at Brook House uncovered by BBC's Panorama programme. The abuse had not been found by HM Inspectorate of Prisons' last inspection of Brook House carried out 10 months before the Panorama broadcast.
Clark said this led to changes to inspection methods: "There was no evidence that the [2016] inspection could or should have found anything similar to what was exposed by the programme; we nevertheless decided to implement what we have termed an 'enhanced methodology' at IRCs. This has involved deploying additional inspection staff to conduct extensive interviews with detainees and staff at the centre. Every detainee is now offered the opportunity to speak privately to an inspector, using interpretation where needed."
In its 2019 inspection carried out in May and June, HM Inspectorate of Prisons found that there was no evidence that the abusive culture shown by the Panorama programme was present among the current staff group at Brook House.
"On the contrary, our detainee survey and interviews found that most detainees were positive about the way they were treated by staff. We found improved training of staff employed in the centre, whistleblowing procedures that staff members had confidence in, and a much-improved ratio of staff numbers to detainees," the report says.
The report, however, raises a number of concerns, including a significant increase of self-harm.
The report states: "In our survey, 40% of detainees said they had felt suicidal while in the centre, reflecting a high level of distress among the population. The number of self-harm incidents had risen Summary Brook House Immigration Removal Centre substantially since the previous inspection. The quality of ACDT [Assessment Care in Detention and Teamwork] documentation was not good enough. Assessments and reviews were timely but care maps frequently lacked detail, case reviews were not sufficiently multidisciplinary and some post-closure reviews were not completed. ACDT observations were regular but did not always demonstrate enough meaningful engagement. Not all key departments attended the safer community meetings and there was little evidence of actions being taken in response to the very useful data that were gathered and presented."
While Brook House was found to be in good condition and clean, HM Inspectorate of Prisons noted the "prison-like" living accommodation.
"The centre's prison-like design was an intractable problem, although the units had been improved through refurbishment and redecoration. There was almost no graffiti and cells were in good condition throughout. Screening of toilets and showers had improved. While toilet screening was still flimsy, there were advanced plans to improve the quality of the screens. Despite improvements to the air-conditioning system, detainees were still affected by the lack of any opening windows and some rooms were hot and stuffy," the report stated.
Health care provision was found to be reasonably good and responsive overall, but a significant minority of detainees complained about their treatment and especially about the attitude of health care staff, often citing dismissive behaviour.
There was also concern over the length of detention, with the report noting: "Despite the reduction in the average length of detention, some detainees were held for prolonged periods. There was evidence that lengthy and indefinite detention affected feelings of safety and wellbeing. At the start of our inspection, 13 detainees had been held for more than six months, two of them for more than a year. The longest detention was for one year and eight months. Sluggish casework and delays in obtaining suitable accommodation and travel documents prolonged detention."
Detainees also faced some websites being blocked, including Amnesty International. The report found: "Detainees could access their emails and use the internet in two designated IT rooms. However, the blocking of legitimate websites, including some national newspapers, immigration support and humanitarian sites, was a significant problem which could affect detainees' preparation for legal cases and removal or release plans."
It added: "The range of legal text books in the library was narrow and many books were out of date. Detainees could download country information and policy notes but important websites were blocked, for example Amnesty International."
HM Inspectorate of Prisons recommends that detainees should have access to legitimate websites, including those facilitating legal assistance, and there should be effective and prompt procedures for unblocking such sites.
On legal advice, the report noted: "All detainees could access half an hour of publicly funded legal advice. The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) had commissioned 48 legal organisations to run the surgeries four days a week. Waits were not excessive, and at the time of our inspection detainees could get an appointment within two days. Arrangements for legal representatives were sound. There were 10 interview rooms and solicitors could bring laptops into the centre.
The report continued: "Only 21% of detainees in our survey said it was easy to obtain bail information. Detainees could easily print documents and use Word but could not download Bail for Immigration Detainees' (BID) helpful advice booklet 'How to get out of detention'. This booklet was available in the welfare office in a number of languages and BID attended the centre twice a month to support detainees applying for bail. All detainees without means were entitled to LAA funded legal representation for bail applications."
According to the report, a third of detainees had no legal representation.
In summing up, Peter Clarke said: "Brook House has faced some very serious problems over the past two years, with investigations and legal actions following the Panorama revelations. Nevertheless, it is to the credit of the leadership and staff that they have been determined to prevent any recurrence of poor behaviour or abuse, and to inject an appropriately respectful culture into the centre, supported by improved training, better supervision of staff, and positive relationships with the detainees."
Meanwhile, BBC News reported on Tuesday that the private firm G4S will no longer run Brook House once the contract expires next year, meaning G4S will no longer have any involvement in the immigration and asylum sector.
According to BBC News, further revelations about alleged abuse at Brook House are likely to emerge during an independent inquiry which is expected to start next year.