Home / Inquiries / Brook House Inquiry / 7
← 6 8 →
7

Introduce 28-day maximum time limit on detention

Brook House Inquiry · The Brook House Inquiry Report · Issued 19 September 2023 · Addressed to: UK Government

Government responseHome Office: Not accepted (Jan 2025)

DeliveryHome Office says not accepted (Jan 2025)

Recommendation, verbatim from the inquiry

●Inquiry recommendation

The government must introduce in legislation a maximum 28-day time limit on any individual's detention within an immigration removal centre.

Brook House Inquiry, The Brook House Inquiry Report · 19 Sep 2023 Source PDF →

Published evidence summary

AI-generated evidence summary

The Inquiry recommended introducing a statutory 28-day maximum time limit on immigration detention. In a January 2025 written answer, Dame Angela Eagle, Minister of State at the Home Office, stated that the recommendation had been rejected (Dame Angela Eagle response, Jan 2025; Dame Angela Eagle, Jan 2025). In July 2025, Mrs Justice Lang in the Administrative Court ruled that the department was lawfully entitled not to accept or implement the recommendation (Mrs Justice Lang, Jul 2025). HM Inspectorate of Prisons found in September 2025 that while the average stay had fallen to 69 days, 67% of detainees at Brook House had been held for over two months, with the longest stay exceeding 550 days (HM Inspectorate of Prisons, Sep 2025).

AI-generated summary of the record on this page, checked by a second model and automatic checks, 5 Oct 2026.

Government response

●Home Office · Not accepted · 15 Jan 2025

Words of: Dame Angela Eagle, Minister of State, Home Office, written answer to Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP, House of Commons, 15 January 2025 (UIN 23170)

Following full consideration three recommendations (recommendations 7, 19 and 30) have been rejected.

Response document: Mistreatment of Detainees at Brook House Immigration Removal Centre Inquiry (written question UIN 23170)

Site note: The source gives this passage once, for the three recommendations it says were rejected. The same words are recorded on recommendations 7, 19 and 30.

Earlier statement from Home Office (1)

●Home Office · Not accepted · 19 Mar 2024

Words of: Home Office, Government response to the public inquiry into Brook House Immigration Removal Centre (CP 1041), March 2024

6.3.2. The government does not accept the recommendation that it should set a time limit on detention. A time limit would significantly impair the ability to remove those who have breached immigration laws and refused to leave the UK voluntarily. The Illegal Migration Act makes it clear that immigration detention must only be used for a period of time that is reasonably necessary, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, for the relevant immigration function to be carried out.

Extract from: Government response to the public inquiry into Brook House Immigration Removal Centre

Site note: CP 1041 is organised by ten key issues, not by recommendation, and states no position on any individual recommendation. Its only general statement of acceptance is that "The government has carefully considered and accepts the broad thrust of the recommendations". The words "in principle" do not appear anywhere in the document.

Delivery

●Home Office says not accepted · 15 Jan 2025

From: Mistreatment of Detainees at Brook House Immigration Removal Centre Inquiry (written question UIN 23170)

Site note: One written answer of 15 January 2025 addresses all 33 recommendations in groups: it names each recommendation in one of four groups and says nothing further about any of them individually. It does not say which of the 30 it describes as "accepted or partially accepted" were accepted in full and which in part.

Site note: The source gives this passage once, for the three recommendations it says were rejected. The same words are recorded on recommendations 7, 19 and 30.

What other bodies have found

In their own words. These do not change the delivery statement above.

●Administrative Court · 21 Jul 2025

I consider that the Defendant was entitled not to accept or implement this recommendation, as a lawful exercise of her executive discretion. The Claimants’ suggestion that this intensifies her duty to rectify other identified issues is their opinion, not an arguable legal submission.

From: R (D1914 and AAA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (AVY) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Mrs Justice Lang

Site note: These are the words of the judge, Mrs Justice Lang, at paragraph 161 of her judgment in R (D1914 and AVY) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 1853 (Admin): the court's finding on the Home Office's decision, not a statement by the Home Office. The Home Office's own words rejecting this recommendation are in its written answer of 15 January 2025.

Published evidence

●HM Inspectorate of Prisons · 3 Sep 2025

Summary by this site of the published finding

3.6 The average cumulative length of detention was still high, but had reduced from 78 to 69 days, and fewer detainees were held long term: three had been held for over a year compared with 10 at the full inspection. 3.7 However, the longest stay was over 550 days, and 67% of detainees had been held in Brook House for over two months, compared with 46% at the full inspection, and 27% at the inspection before that.

Read the finding in full3.6 The average cumulative length of detention was still high, but had reduced from 78 to 69 days, and fewer detainees were held long term: three had been held for over a year compared with 10 at the full inspection. 3.7 However, the longest stay was over 550 days, and 67% of detainees had been held in Brook House for over two months, compared with 46% at the full inspection, and 27% at the inspection before that.

Report on an independent review of progress at Brook House IRC (September 2025)View source →

How this page is built

The recommendation and the government responses are verbatim from primary documents. Delivery statements and other bodies' findings are shown in their own words, each with its source. The summary is written by this site and labelled as such. The Index does not paraphrase sources or characterise intent; it records what has been published.