Home / Inquiries / Brook House Inquiry / 30
← 29 31 →
30

Enhance Professional Standards Unit independence and seniority

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

Government responseHome Office: Not accepted (Jan 2025)

DeliveryHome Office says not accepted (Jan 2025)

Recommendation, verbatim from the inquiry

●Inquiry recommendation

The Home Office must: take steps to enhance the independence of the Professional Standards Unit from the Home Office and the perception of this independence; and increase the seniority of the Head of the Professional Standards Unit so that they are closer in status to the Heads of the relevant Home Office Immigration Enforcement teams.

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

Published evidence summary

AI-generated evidence summary

In January 2025, Dame Angela Eagle, Minister of State at the Home Office, stated in a written answer that the recommendation had been rejected following full consideration (Dame Angela Eagle response, Jan 2025; Dame Angela Eagle, Jan 2025). The department had previously stated in its March 2024 response that the seniority of the Head of the Professional Standards Unit would not be changed (Home Office response, Mar 2024). The record holds no update since the department's response of January 2025 (Dame Angela Eagle response, Jan 2025; Dame Angela Eagle, Jan 2025).

AI-generated summary of the record on this page, checked by a second model and automatic checks, 26 Sep 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

6.9.3. Whilst the seniority of the Head of the PSU will not be changed, the government is confident that the PSU operates within Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) Code of Practice on disciplinary procedures requiring fairness and transparency in workplace investigations. Should any complainant be dissatisfied with the outcome of an investigation, there are well communicated routes for escalation or redress outside the Home Office via the PPO.

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.

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.