Report on an unannounced full follow-up inspection of Harmondsworth IRC

'The prison-like design of the new units is regrettable and such an environment will always be unsuitable for people held under immigration powers'

Inspection tool place, 14 - 25 November 2011 by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons. Report compiled February 2012, published Wednesday 11th April 2012  -  Download the full report: Harmondsworth 2011.pdf

Inspectors have made 161 both repeated and further recommendations. [ The recommendations are contained on pages 79 to 90 and in their totality make grim reading ]

There were only 2 examples of good practice.

Major concerns included:

- the unacceptable practice of taking reserves to charter flight removals persisted.

- About 10% of the population had been held in detention for over a year and the anxiety that flowed from this experience was palpable. Inspectors were therefore concerned to find that the ability to communicate with legal advisors or other support mechanisms, or to see on-site UK Border Agency staff was often limited.

- Rule 35 reports and responses to detainees who may have been the victims of torture or who were unfit to detain were often insufficient;

- much of the new accommodation had been built to prison specifications which was out of keeping with how detainees should be managed;

- A major area for ongoing concern was health care, which remained a source of considerable complaint from detainees.

- Mental health needs were under identified and the inpatients department was described by staff themselves as a 'forgotten world'.

- The poor service we witnessed the last time we visited was still evident in many respects,

- provision of activity had failed to keep pace with the growth of the centre, so most detainees had too little to do;

- systems and structures to deal with violence and bullying were still in need of further development

- On the older units, toilets and showers were in very poor condition

Introduction from the report
Over recent years we have recorded steady progress at Harmondsworth immigration removal centre. At our last inspection in early 2010 this improvement had continued, although at the time the imminent opening of new accommodation raised the prospect of significant challenges, not least because it meant that the centre was to double in size. At this full follow¬up inspection, we found that some improvements had been sustained during a time of considerable change and transition, but that much still needed to be done.

Harmondsworth remained a reasonably safe institution. Although quite significant numbers of detainees in our survey reported that they felt unsafe, our in-depth interviews revealed few concerns about personal safety, and more about poor health care, insufficient staff and insecurity as a result of immigration cases. Staff dealt with incidents reasonably well, although systems and structures to deal with violence and bullying were still in need of further development. Arrangements to support those at risk of self-harm were generally good.

About 10% of the population had been held in detention for over a year and the frustration and anxiety that flowed from this experience was palpable. The ability of individuals to communicate with legal advisors or other support mechanisms, or indeed see on site UK Border Agency staff, was often limited, although some aspects of the detained fast track procedure had improved. Rule 35 reports and subsequent responses to detainees who may have been the victims of torture or who were unfit to detain were often insufficient or formulaic, and gave limited assurance that the needs of individuals had been fully considered.

We observed reasonable engagement between staff and detainees and about two-thirds of detainees described staff as respectful. Formal consultation was sporadic and fragmented and there was under use of interpretation. Much of the new accommodation had been built to prison specifications, which was out of keeping with how a detainee population should be managed. On the older units, toilets and showers were in very poor condition. The promotion of and respect for diversity had improved and there was little evidence of tension between different groups.

A major area for ongoing concern was health care, which remained a source of considerable complaint from detainees. Mental health needs were under identified and the inpatients department was described by staff themselves as a 'forgotten world'. The poor service we witnessed the last time we visited was still evident in many respects, but we also saw renewed efforts from managers and improvements were beginning to be seen.

Provision of activity had failed to keep pace with the growth of the centre. The majority of detainees had too little to do and only a minority were able to access paid employment. Most roles on offer were allocated fairly but were usually mundane. A small amount of education was on offer but many sessions were cancelled or unsupervised. Reorganised activities provision was likely to improve access over the longer term but the changes had yet to become fully established.

The preparation of detainees for release was reasonably good. There was evidence of some good welfare and pre-removal/release work by staff, but much was unstructured. The centre had plans to rectify this by creating a much needed welfare department. A pre-release assessment was undertaken shortly before detainees were removed or released and outside agencies provided some support. Access to telephone and internet communications and the provision of visits were mostly satisfactory. The process of removal we observed was carried out reasonably well, but the unacceptable practice of taking reserves to charter fight removals persisted.

Harmondsworth is now a bigger and more complex institution following a period of rapid change and expansion. Standards have been maintained in many areas despite the upheaval, and this is a considerable achievement that deserves recognition. However, the prison-like design of the new units is regrettable and such an environment will always be unsuitable for people held under immigration powers. Other areas gave us cause for significant concern, including health care, activities and the management of detainees who might be unfit for detention. Improvements in these areas need to be sustained and accelerated.

Nick Hardwick
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons