New inspection report of Border Force facilities in Calais, Coquelles and Dunkirk highlights ongoing challenges
His Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons (HMI Prisons) yesterday published the report of an unannounced inspection of the UK's short-term holding facilities (STHFs) in France.
Image credit: WikipediaYou can download the 35-page report here.
HMI Prisons conducted an inspection of the UK's five short-term holding facilities (STHFs) at the France-UK border during a visit in November 2024. The STHFs are located in Calais, Coquelles, and Dunkirk, and are managed on behalf of the Home Office by Care and Custody, a division of the Mitie Group. They are used by Border Force to detain travellers in French territory pending a decision to admit, grant leave to enter or refuse entry to the UK.
The inspection revealed a mixed picture of ongoing challenges and failures amid some improvements.
Inspectors identified nine key concerns, five of which were deemed priorities requiring immediate attention by leaders and managers. These included the failure to make necessary safeguarding referrals, the lack of systematic data collation to improve outcomes, weak governance of the use of force by Border Force staff, poor physical conditions at the Coquelles facilities, and longstanding problems with phone and radio signals that undermined communication and use of professional interpretation.
The inspection also raised concerns over staff's unfamiliarity with Home Office age assessment guidance, with officers failing to apply the correct test in every case reviewed. In the year leading up to HMI Prisons' visit, Border Force staff at the short-term holding facilities conducted 177 age assessments.
The report notes: "Age assessments were conducted without a responsible adult and sometimes took place in freight sheds with no use of interpretation. They could be based solely on the detainee's visual appearance. We looked at four cases where detainees saying they were children were assessed as being adult. The assessment was not in line with the legal threshold and therefore unsafe in all four cases. Officers noted that detainees' appearance and demeanour suggested they were 'over 18', while the correct legal test is for the individual's physical appearance and demeanour to suggest very strongly that they are significantly over 18, in recognition of the margin of error inherent in age assessment. In one of the four cases, the detainee was assessed to be 20 years old and seven officers later used force on him, with five using pain-inducing techniques."
HMI Prisons raised serious concerns about child safeguarding referrals to the French Police aux Frontières (PAF). Some Border Force staff were unclear on the requirement to refer all unaccompanied children, and in certain cases involving particularly vulnerable children, no record of a referral could be found.
The report highlighted alarming cases of re-trafficking, including a 14-year-old girl found zipped inside a holdall in a car boot. After being handed over to PAF, she was smuggled back to the UK and held in a warehouse with other women before managing to escape. A 16-year-old boy, who disclosed a history of abuse and trafficking, was similarly re-trafficked weeks after being transferred to PAF. Although Border Force records suggested safeguarding referrals had been made for both cases, no copies could be found.
Inspectors also found that neither Border Force nor Care and Custody staff had received specialist training on using force on children, though a new programme was reportedly in development. Additionally, practices for searching children remained inconsistent, with some staff conducting rub-down searches on older children even when a handheld wand did not indicate a need for further checks.
Other general concerns raised by the inspection included slow complaints handling, with some responses taking months and failing to address key concerns, including allegations of discrimination.
HMI Prisons found that Border Force teams were generally processing cases efficiently to minimise detention length, but there were too many exceptions. Some detainees, including children, had been held for over ten hours, which was deemed far too long for such conditions. Furthermore, detainees were not routinely offered mobile phones or the opportunity to contact family or friends after induction. At Coquelles Freight, detainees were found in a stuffy and smelly holding room without access to showers, having already been held for over seven hours. While staff at different sites had theories about why detainees were sometimes held longer than necessary, there had been no systematic analysis of the reasons for prolonged detentions to drive improvement.
Leadership oversight for incidents of concern at the STHFs was found to be poor. For some serious incidents, there was no evidence that either video footage or paperwork had been reviewed. More broadly, management information was limited and not used well enough to promote improvements. Leaders failed to adequately promote the importance of safeguarding practices.
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, Charlie Taylor, highlighted some positive developments in the report, including the introduction of 24-hour healthcare support across all facilities. Paramedics were readily available and responded quickly, and detainees spoke positively about their treatment by both Care and Custody and Border Force staff.