Recommendation 1
Introduce a time limit for immigration detention.
Source · IMB Annual Report
Brook House
AI-generated report summary In 2020, Brook House IRC faced significant challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a contract change to Serco, and a compressed charter flight programme for Dublin Convention removals. The Board found the centre unsafe for vulnerable detainees in the latter months, marked by a dramatic increase in self-harm and suicidal ideation, and inhumane treatment of detainees due to Home Office policies. Delays in Rule 35 assessments, inadequate inductions, and issues with property and communication from the Home Office were key concerns, despite a welcome increase in staff numbers and some improvements in facilities.
Year: 2020
Published: 21 May 2021
Type: Prison · Cat IRC
Population: 95
Recommendations: 11
Key concerns
Positive findings
Safety statistics
| Indicator | This year | Previous |
|---|---|---|
| Prisoner assaults | 11 | 20 |
| Assaults on staff | 45 | 82 |
| Use of force | 197 | 223 |
| Drug finds | 25 | 45 |
Positive findings
AI-generated summaryThe Board welcomed the increase in staffing numbers following Serco taking over the contract on 21 May. Improvements were also noted in IT systems for detainees, the opening of education rooms on weekends, and the fixing of defects in rooms for detainees with disabilities. The Home Office was commended for treating age dispute cases with NRM claims as minors. A Serco social worker provided beneficial additional support to vulnerable detainees. Relationships between officers and detainees were generally positive, and Rule 40 reviews were conducted sensitively. Serco's plans to separate safer community and equality/diversity governance meetings were welcomed, as was the reintroduction of detainee consultation forums and spiritual support from the religious affairs team.
Key concerns
Brook House was not a safe place for vulnerable detainees who had crossed the Channel in small boats.
A dramatic increase in levels of self-harm and suicidal ideation was observed.
Inductions became ad hoc and were no longer delivered by specialists trained in inductions. Moreover, the process could be very confusing, with an enormous amount of information delivered to perhaps a single detainee, sometimes immediately on arrival following a long journey and having gone through the reception process. In addition, the quality of the induction could vary from officer to officer, and not all officers were familiar with providing them.
Serious delays in access to Rule 35 assessments and increased needs for legal support.
Circumstances related to the Dublin Convention charter programme amounted to inhumane treatment of the detainee population by the Home Office.
Large numbers of detainees were detained for removal but later released, having been exposed to the harmful effects of detention.
Some detainees granted bail were not released for a considerable time due to a lack of suitable accommodation.
From the Board’s records, at least 26 detainees were removed on the charter flights while on ACDTs, and yet there appear to have been no formal arrangements in place for briefings to the receiving authorities about these most vulnerable of detainees, some of whom were on constant supervision when collected from Brook House.
Detainees were not given advance information about what would happen to them in receiving countries if removed under the Dublin Convention.
At times, there was a high demand for professional telephone interpreting for Arabic and Farsi speakers especially, combined with delays in getting interpreters on the line or poor-quality connections with the interpreting service.
Difficulties in maintaining access to solicitors were noted.
A failure to identify vulnerabilities such as age and torture claims at an early stage.
Detainees have been particularly distressed by the confiscation of their mobile phones, as this is sometimes the only place that they store family telephone numbers. To have their property returned, detainees have been told to contact a Home Office email address or telephone number but they complain that the telephone is never picked up and emails are not answered.
There have been issues with information provision to detainees who were on the manifests for Dublin Convention charter flights, when delayed communication between caseworkers, the local DET and Serco officers has led to some detainees believing that they were to be removed, when in fact it had been known for a while that they would not be. This caused unnecessary distress and there were a few instances of detainees self-harming during this period.
The healthcare service was over-stretched.
Apparent failures in identifying risk and vulnerabilities at different stages in the overall Home Office detention system.
The Board has also noted that attitudes of some staff towards self-harm and food and fluid refusals can at times lean towards a culture of disbelief – for example, sometimes referring to these as techniques for avoiding removal.
Questionable pre-emptive use of Rule 40 in some instances.
An increased prevalence of use of force this year, particularly after the shift to a more vulnerable population.
The Board believes that it is usually informed in a timely manner, but there were some rare occasions this year when incidents were only brought to the Board’s attention after a longer period of time.
The Board also questioned the absence of Home Office personnel in ACDT or constant supervision reviews, being of the view that it would be fair and respectful to detainees to have a presence, given the impact of Home Office decisions on their lives.
Fewer opportunities for detainees to be consulted or engaged, such as in detainee forums.
Serco has introduced translation tablets for simpler and more utilitarian communication. The Board welcomes this, but there have been issues due to weak Wi-Fi signals on the wings. Wi-Fi boosters were to be installed late in the year but the Board has not yet had the chance to see if this has improved things.
From our observations, it was not clear that this group of detainees were as familiar with, or confident about, the complaints process.
4 Vulnerable detainees, safeguarding In our annual report for 2019, the Board pressed for a review of adults at risk (AAR), ACDT and Rule 35 policy and procedure. In his response to our report, the minister for immigration compliance and the courts said that these were all under review and that the intention was to implement changes resulting from the reviews by the end of summer 2020. We are disappointed that the Home Office appears to have ‘paused’ these reviews.
In our report of 2019, the Board expressed concern about this system, noting that it did not adequately capture an individual’s level of vulnerability or any deterioration in his situation.
Recommendations
Recommendation 2
Review systems and processes in the detention journey, to ensure that vulnerabilities such as age, modern slavery and Rule 35 torture claims are identified and assessed at earliest stages.
Recommendation 3
The Board repeats all of its recommendations from 2019 relating to reviews of adults at risk; and assessment, care in detention and teamwork (ACDT) and Rule 35 policies and processes.
Recommendation 4
There should be a requirement for systematic and ongoing review of vulnerable detainees, to monitor the effect of continued detention on their wellbeing.
Recommendation 5
Review arrangements for the provision of suitable accommodation for detainees granted bail to reduce waiting times.
Recommendation 6
Ensure that inductions for new arrivals are consistent in delivery and content, and backed up by written information in the languages of detainees in the centre.
Recommendation 7
Continue assessments for escorted visits, to see if the use of handcuffs can be reduced further.
Recommendation 8
The Board recognises early improvements made but is of the view that more needs to be done in the offer and consistent delivery of a wide programme of organised and purposeful activities for detainees.
Recommendation 9
Design and deliver a range of vocational training to prepare detainees for their release.
Recommendation 10
Keep staff recruitment and retention as a priority.
Recommendation 11
There should be a requirement for systematic and ongoing review of vulnerable detainees, to monitor the effect of continued detention on their wellbeing.
Applications to the IMB
| Category | Current | Previous |
|---|---|---|
| Accommodation (including transfers) | 4 | 18 |
| Detention conditions | 2 | 12 |
| Food | 4 | 14 |
| General | 1 | 10 |
| Immigration case work | 4 | 32 |
| Legal | 0 | 10 |
| Medical | 5 | 19 |
| Other | 0 | 0 |
| Property | 2 | 42 |
| Staff behaviour | 17 | 44 |
| Total | 39 | 201 |