Home / Inquiries / Brook House Inquiry / 25
← 24 26 →
25

Ensure senior manager presence and accessibility to staff

Brook House Inquiry · The Brook House Inquiry Report · Issued 19 September 2023 · Addressed to: Home Office

Government responseHome Office: Accepted, fully or in part (not specified) (Jan 2025)

DeliveryHome Office says completed (Jan 2025)

Recommendation, verbatim from the inquiry

●Inquiry recommendation

Contractors operating immigration removal centres must ensure that senior managers are regularly present and visible within the immigration removal centre and are accessible to more junior detention staff.

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

Published evidence summary

AI-generated evidence summary

The Inquiry asked contractors to ensure senior managers are visible and accessible to staff. In a January 2025 written answer, Dame Angela Eagle, Minister of State at the Home Office, stated that the recommendation was accepted or partially accepted and was among twelve "met and closed as of October 2024" (Dame Angela Eagle response, Jan 2025; Dame Angela Eagle, Jan 2025). In September 2025, HM Inspectorate of Prisons found that operational managers and custody officers were more present on residential wings, staff turnover had fallen significantly, and functional leadership had been bolstered across key areas (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.

About this summary
This recommendation applies across many organisations. The record above reflects central policy activity; adoption in individual organisations may vary.

Government response

●Home Office · Accepted, fully or in part (not specified) · 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)

30 out of the 33 recommendations made by the Brook House Inquiry have been accepted or partially accepted.

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

Site note: The written answer gives this sentence once, for 30 of the 33 recommendations together: every recommendation except 7, 19 and 30, which it says were rejected. It does not say which of the 30 were accepted in full and which in part, so the site records "Accepted, fully or in part (not specified)". The same words are recorded on recommendations 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32 and 33. Recommendations 1, 2 and 3 are among the 30 but are not given this row, because the Minister's letter of 22 May 2025 states a position on each of them.

Earlier statement from Home Office (1)

●Home Office · Under consideration · 19 Mar 2024

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

6.8.1. The report findings in relation to contracted service provider staff behaviour and culture were shocking and unacceptable. Significant changes have been implemented to better define operational staffing levels, introduce accredited training, a code of conduct, and a mandatory staff engagement strategy. The government is particularly mindful of the findings that the negative culture at Brook House during the time of the documentary was endemic and enabled by senior managers. The Home Office is working to ensure that all safeguards and monitoring of conduct apply to all staff, including senior leadership.

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 completed · 15 Jan 2025

12 recommendations (recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 14, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26) met and closed as of October 2024

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 12 recommendations it describes as met and closed. The same words are recorded on recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 14, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26.

Published evidence

●HM Inspectorate of Prisons · 3 Sep 2025

Summary by this site of the published finding

1.6 We found that leaders had invested heavily in improving the number and capability of staff. Detainee custody officers and front-line managers were more visible on the wings and we saw mature and effective staff management of tense situations. Staff attrition rates had dropped very significantly and functional leadership had been strengthened across key areas, including health care, reception and welfare services.

Read the finding in full1.6 We found that leaders had invested heavily in improving the number and capability of staff. Detainee custody officers and front-line managers were more visible on the wings and we saw mature and effective staff management of tense situations. Staff attrition rates had dropped very significantly and functional leadership had been strengthened across key areas, including health care, reception and welfare services.

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.