Report on an unannounced short follow up inspection of Campsfield House Immigration Removal Centre. 16-18 May 2011 by HMCIP. Report compiled July 2011, published Wednesday 4th October 2011
Campsfield House Immigration Removal Centre - Too Little Progress
Inspectors were concerned to find that:
- while enforced 'separation' was not overused, it was sometimes not properly authorised;
- there were a number of weaknesses in UKBA casework;
- there was a need for more interpretation services and wider use of translated notices;
- there were significant weaknesses in health care services;
- some multi-disciplinary attempts were made to manage vulnerable detainees leaving the centre, but attention needed to focus more on detainee care rather than solely on control issues; and
- education provision had not increased and was particularly unsuitable for those spending lengthy periods in the centre.
Inspectors were pleased to find that:
- early days at the centre remained generally well managed;
- detainees felt safe, and there was little bullying or use of force;
- relationships between staff and detainees were satisfactory, supported by effective welfare officers;
- the number of work placements remained good and allocation arrangements had improved; and
- access to phones and email were good.
Nick Hardwick said: "Campsfield House has faced an unsettling time as UKBA deliberated on the centre's future and on which private company should manage it. To the centre's credit, this inspection identified few signs of significant deterioration. However, we also noted that too little progress had been made in remedying areas that we had previously identified as requiring improvement and had particular concerns about the lack of progress in health care. With a new provider in place, there is now no excuse for the centre not to make expeditious progress on our recommendations."
Introduction from the report
Campsfield House immigration removal centre in Oxfordshire, holds adult male detainees on behalf of UK Border Agency (UKBA). Our last report was largely complimentary. This unannounced inspection came at a time of uncertainty over Campsfield House's future and we found that many of our previous recommendations had yet to be implemented. Shortly after the inspection, the provider – GEO Group UK Ltd – was replaced by MITIE. It is to be hoped that, with certainty restored, there can now be a concerted effort by the new provider to address our concerns.
Despite a poorly designed reception and scope to improve risk assessments, early days at the centre remained generally well managed. Detainees felt very safe and there was little bullying. Security was generally proportionate. There was little use of force, although we had some concerns that de-escalation was not always attempted. Similarly, while separation was not overused, it was sometimes not properly authorised. Detainees reported positively about on-site immigration staff but there were a number of weaknesses in UKBA casework.
Relationships between staff and detainees were satisfactory, supported by effective welfare officers, but there was a need for more interpretation services and wider use of translated notices. Diversity arrangements had improved but still required further effort to ensure all nationalities were equally treated. There were significant weaknesses in health care services.
Detainees had a reasonable amount of time out of room, but education provision had not increased and was particularly unsuitable for those spending lengthy periods in the centre. The number of work placements remained good and allocation arrangements had improved. There was reasonable library and PE provision.
Detainees benefitted from active welfare officers who provided support from induction through to removal. Access to phones and mail was good, and visits arrangements were generally well regarded, although some security arrangements were disproportionate. Some multidisciplinary attempts were made to manage vulnerable detainees leaving the centre, but attention needed to focus more on detainee care rather than solely on control issues.
Campsfield House has faced an unsettling time as UKBA deliberated on the centre's future and on which private company should manage it. To the centre's credit, this inspection identified few signs of significant deterioration. However, we also noted that too little progress had been made in remedying areas that we had previously identified as requiring improvement and had particular concerns about the lack of progress in health care. With a new provider in place, there is now no excuse for the centre not to make expeditious progress on our recommendations.
Nick Hardwick
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons |