Report on an unannounced short follow up inspection of Lindholme IRC 17–20 January 2011 by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons. Report compiled March 2011, published Tuesday 10th May 2011

At its last inspection, inspectors were concerned by a number of safety issues, a lack of emphasis on preparing detainees for release and the inability of the IRC to break away from the prison and carve out a separate and more appropriate identity for itself. This inspection has identified some superficial progress, but little substantive change.

Inspectors were concerned to find that:

- there were weaknesses in the arrangements to identify those who had been subject to torture;

- while detainees generally reported feeling safe, a large number of our previous recommendations had not been achieved;

- there was little bullying, but violence reduction systems remained weak and levels of night-time supervision were still too low;

- telephone translation remained under used;

- the general quality of accommodation remained poor, with improvements largely on hold pending a decision on expansion plans for the IRC;

- there had been little improvement in the preparation of detainees for release or removal; and

- there was still inadequate welfare officer provision and detainees still had no access to the internet or email.

- Diversity remained underdeveloped and faith services had suffered financial cutbacks

Introduction from the report
Lindholme immigration removal centre (IRC), adjacent to HMP Lindholme near Doncaster, is run by the Prison Service on behalf of UK Border Agency (UKBA). On our last visit we were concerned by a number of safety issues, a lack of emphasis on preparing detainees for release and the continued inability of the IRC to break away from its parent prison and carve out a separate and more appropriate identity for itself. On our return, for this unannounced follow-up inspection, we identified some superficial progress but little substantive change which appeared inhibited by uncertainty over the IRC's future.

While detainees generally reported feeling safe, a large number of our previous recommendations in this area had not been achieved. Early days were managed satisfactorily, although telephone translation remained underused. There was little bullying, but violence reduction systems remained weak and levels of night time supervision were still too low. Security appeared proportionate, but the separation rooms remained inadequate. Casework was well managed and legal advice was available, but we were concerned by weaknesses in the arrangements to identify those who had been subject to torture.

The general quality of the accommodation remained poor, with improvements largely on hold pending a decision on ambitious expansion plans for the IRC. Staff-detainee relationships were generally positive, although they would benefit from more use of professional translation services. Diversity remained underdeveloped and faith services had suffered financial cutbacks. Health care services were generally good, but had to be provided in wholly inadequate facilities.

Time out of room and access to purposeful activity remained reasonable. Education had improved and good efforts had been made to maximise available activity resources. There was an attractive and welcoming activities centre, although its planned extension was on hold. The amount of paid work had increased slightly but was still insufficient. The library and physical education were satisfactory.

There had been little improvement in the preparation of detainees for release or removal. There was still inadequate welfare officer provision and detainees still had no access to the internet or e-mail. Access to phones was good and visits arrangements were satisfactory.

Managers and staff at Lindholme IRC had made some initial inroads into the areas for improvement identified in our last inspection. However, uncertainty over the IRC's future appeared not only to have prevented much needed investment in infrastructure but also hampered the bedding in of some of the changes that had been made. The IRC has a number of strengths upon which to build, but progress appears to be contingent on clarification about its future – and, as we have frequently reported, a clear separation of the IRC from the adjacent prison and the shadow of prison culture.

Nick Hardwick March 2011
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons