Unannounced full follow-up inspection of Colnbrook Immigration Removal Centre and Short Term Holding Facility 16–27 August 2010 by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons. Report compiled November 2010, published Tuesday 25th January 2011
Colnbrook IRC is manage by Serco
Inspectors have made 191 recommendations to change current practices at the centre, there were only 2 examples of good practice.
Inspectors were concerned to find that:
- safety remained a concern, compounded by a significant drug problem which Colnbrook had only just begun to address;
- Staff were still managing a challenging mix of ex¬offenders, vulnerable or disruptive individuals and an increasing number of highly frustrated long-term detainees
- the Short Term Holding Facility (STHF) offered a poor environment and limited regime and was an inappropriate place to hold women;
- some security responses were disproportionate, with high use of force and separation - not all of which was properly managed;
- work around diversity had deteriorated and too little use was made of interpretation;
- although staff continued to work hard to provide a good welfare service, the resources devoted to this important area were being reduced.
- there was excessive use of demeaning anti-ligature clothing
- vulnerable detainee unit remained oppressive and an alternative is urgently required
- ventilation remained poor
Introduction from the report - Download the full report: Colnbrook2011.pdf
Colnbrook Immigration Removal Centre (IRC), at Heathrow, is one of the most secure facilities in the immigration estate. Run by Serco, it holds male detainees, most of whom have previously been in prison and some of whom have proved difficult to manage elsewhere. The adjoining short-term holding facility (STHF) houses both men and women and doubles as a first days unit for the main centre. Our last inspection was highly critical and suggested that the facility was at the outer limits of its capacity to cope. On our return for this unannounced follow¬up inspection, we were pleased to find some improvements but also noted a large number of continuing concerns.
Safety remained a concern at Coin brook. Staff were still managing a challenging mix of ex¬offenders, vulnerable or disruptive individuals and an increasing number of highly frustrated long-term detainees, all housed in austere, higher security conditions designed for short stays. Problems had been compounded by a significant drug problem which Coin brook had only just begun to address. On top of this the STHF continued to lack a clear and consistent role and offered a poor environment and limited regime. In particular, as we have stated clearly in previous reports, it remains a wholly inappropriate place to hold women.
More positively, violent incidents had reduced with the introduction of a comprehensive violence reduction strategy, better security and improved anti-bullying arrangements. The treatment of the significant numbers at risk of self-harm was generally good, although there was excessive use of demeaning anti-ligature clothing. Overall, however, there remained a long way to go: two-thirds of detainees still reported feeling unsafe and some security responses were disproportionate, with high use of force and separation - not all of which was properly managed. The vulnerable detainee unit remained oppressive and an alternative is urgently required.
Accommodation was adequate but noisy and ventilation remained poor. Staff appeared more confident and had benefited from a mentoring scheme but relationships with detainees were still mixed. Work around diversity had deteriorated and too little use was made of interpretation services. Healthcare services were now satisfactory.
Commendably, Coin brook had sustained improvements in the quantity and quality of activity noted at our previous inspection. There was now an expanded range of paid work and education had improved, although provision remained limited for the increasing proportion of detainees staying for lengthy periods at the centre.
Staff continued to work hard to provide a good welfare service, but the resources devoted to this important area were being reduced following recent renegotiations of the centre's contract. There was no systematic multi-disciplinary planning to support those likely to resist removal. Access to visits was good but some restrictions were excessive. There were too few computers to access the internet which inhibited communication with the outside world and preparation from release or removal.
When we last inspected Coin brook, we reported that a demoralised staff was struggling to cope with the array of needs and risks posed by a population that included some of the most challenging, vulnerable and frustrated detainees in the immigration estate. This inspection identified some progress: staff appeared more confident, violence reduction arrangements had improved, a start had been made on addressing the drug problem and the amount of activity had increased. However, in other areas we report much less positively: most detainees still felt unsafe, work on diversity had deteriorated and despite plans for change, our previous main recommendations, that women should no longer be held in the short-term holding unit and that the vulnerable detainee unit should close, had still not been achieved. Overall, Coin brook still has a long way to go but we are pleased to be able to identify some progress on this journey.
Nick Hardwick
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons |