New inspection finds IRC provides good living conditions, but Home Office processes and decision-making are slow
His Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons (HMI Prisons) today published a comprehensive new inspection report yesterday of Tinsley House Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) operated by Serco at Gatwick Airport.
Image credit: UK GovernmentYou can download the 62-page inspection report here.
At the time of HMI Prisons' unannounced inspection in April and May of this year, Tinsley House had significantly reduced capacity due to staff shortages. The report explains: "Although the centre is capable of holding up to 162 almost exclusively adult male detainees, operational capacity had been reduced to below 100 at the time of our inspection, with just 50 men detained. We were told this reduction was a consequence of staff shortages among the on-site Home Office Detention Engagement Team."
Overall, HMI Prisons found Tinsley House to be a reasonably good IRC offering safety and respect to detainees. Living conditions were generally good, facilities and access to services were satisfactory, violence was rare, and the IRC's leadership was strong and provided good direction.
A number of concerns were identified, however, including delays around casework, decision-making and obtaining travel documentation for detainees' removal.
Charlie Taylor, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, said in summing up these concerns: "[T]here was a need to speed up processes and decision-making in relation to those facing removal, while also making sure there was better support for those detainees – more than half – who were ultimately released into the community. Linked to these issues, we found that medical assessments concerning those thought to be victims of torture (Rule 35) lacked clarity and depth."
The inspection found that the Home Office's detention engagement team (DET) at Tinsley House was understaffed and overstretched. A majority (77%) of detainees said they were not kept informed about their case.
Inspectors observed cases of unacceptably long detention and found record keeping was unreliable.
HMI Prisons stated: "At the outset of our inspection, the longest period a detainee had been held at Tinsley House was 165 days. The average cumulative time spent in detention, including time spent in other centres, was 79 days, which was higher than we usually see. Three detainees had been held for over a year, with the longest held for 444 days, which was unacceptably long. Home Office managers recognised that the available data on time held in detention were not reliable, and we could not be confident that the average length of cumulative detention provided was accurate."
Inspectors examined the cases of 10 detainees to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of Home Office caseworking and identified several common issues, including long waits for bail accommodation.
The report further notes: "Some cases had been greatly delayed while the Home Office attempted to secure travel documents that would allow a detainee without a passport to be removed to their home country. In others, detained asylum casework had been slow. We found examples of detainees with significant barriers to removal, such as judicial reviews with no set timescales, and nationals of countries where return processes were currently suspended who continued to be held. This was despite minimal likelihood of removal in a reasonable timescale and, in many cases, despite the Home Office's case progression panel recommending their release. Many detainees told us that slow case progression was a major frustration to them."
With regard to concerns over the detention of victims of torture, the report noted: "Rule 35 reports were considered by an offsite Home Office casework team. Detention engagement team (DET) staff no longer monitored the timeliness of the team's responses and there was evidence of some unacceptable delay. In one case, it took over 10 weeks for the Home Office to reply to a report that a detainee had been tortured. In another, the Home Office took three weeks to respond to a report for a suicidal detainee who had been discovered researching how to take his life. … The Home Office accepted evidence of torture in seven out of the nine torture cases in our sample. … No detainees were released as a result of this assessment. Detention was maintained in four cases because it was considered that negative immigration factors outweighed the detainees' vulnerability. Three detainees were released before consideration of the report."
Serco staff at the IRC had limited understanding of adult safeguarding, modern slavery or the Home Office's policy on adults at risk in detention. HMI Prisons found Serco had made no adult safeguarding or modern slavery referrals in the last 12 months.
While levels of self-harm at Tinsley House were low, HMI Prisons found that the IRC's investigation into repeated incidents of self-harm involving one detainee was not thorough and the results were not considered in sufficient detail to learn lessons.
On detainees' access to legal advice, the report briefly notes: "Detainees could access free legal advice through the Detained Duty Advice Service. Two sessions a week took place, all now face-to-face. Provision was good, but many detainees were dissatisfied as legal representatives chose not to take on their cases. The centre's welfare team was active in supporting detainees to find a new representative when this happened."
Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) undertook a monthly surgery at the centre.
Detainees had access to a library providing a small range of legal textbooks, although not all of these were up to date. Computers in the library allowed detainees to access several useful websites, though social media sites were blocked. The video-link technology in the centre was broken, meaning detainees who had bail hearings were unable to use it and had to dial in on a telephone.
In the three months prior to HMI Prisons' inspection, 63% of detainees leaving the centre had been released into the community. The needs of vulnerable detainees and those released homeless were not systematically assessed and addressed.
The report highlights: "Some of those released were vulnerable. Although information was shared at the weekly vulnerable residents meeting, no multidisciplinary meetings had been convened to plan specifically for the safe release of individuals with complex risks or needs since the centre had reopened as an IRC. Leaders said that none had been assessed as needing this form of additional release planning. Some detainees had been released homeless, but data on the number were unreliable. Apart from clothes, the centre could not provide anything to those released in such circumstances, though Gatwick [Detainees Welfare Group] and others sought to source other support."