Source · IMB Annual Report
Tinsley House IRC
AI-generated report summary 2020 was an exceptional year for Tinsley House IRC, largely operating as an IRC for only three months due to the Covid-19 pandemic, being empty for six months, and then dual-certified as a Short Term Holding Facility (STHF) for the remainder of the year. The IMB adapted its monitoring, including remote observation for the STHF period, noting generally safe and humane conditions despite challenges like unpredictable detainee numbers and transient populations. Key concerns identified for the IRC's eventual return to full operation, as well as immediate issues for the STHF, include Covid-19 safety protocols, the quality of Rule 35 responses, and the effectiveness of detainee engagement processes.
Year: 2020
Published: 26 Mar 2021
Type: IRC · Cat IRC
Population: 0
Recommendations: 9
Key concerns
Positive findings
Safety statistics
| Indicator | This year | Previous |
|---|---|---|
| Deaths in custody | 0 | — |
| Self-harm incidents | 3 | — |
| ACCT cases opened | 5 | — |
| Prisoner assaults | 0 | — |
| Assaults on staff | 0 | — |
| Use of force | 7 | — |
| Drug finds | 0 | — |
Positive findings
AI-generated summaryThe IMB observed a generally positive atmosphere and continuing positive relationships between detainees and G4S staff during the IRC's operation in early 2020, judging it to be a fundamentally safe environment. Healthcare staff were commended for their accessible and responsive care during the STHF period, handling unpredictable arrivals effectively. The proactive work of the welfare department was praised, and the IMB welcomed the planned expansion of this department and the reversal of the reduction in free association time. Additionally, the refurbishment of the multi-faith space was appreciated, and the IMB was pleased to once again receive copies of detainee complaints.
Key concerns
The implementation of the adults-at-risk policy may not always adequately identify and protect particularly vulnerable detainees, and in particular the manner in which the Rule 35 procedure and decision making was functioning.
HOIE Rule 35 notification responses are not always tailored to the individuals to whom they relate and are not genuinely meaningful, often using formulaic reasons.
Policy of allowing room sharing at Tinsley House STHF by multiples of detainees during the currency of the pandemic, simply because they may have spent time together in small boats or on coaches en route to the centre.
Current policy of not Covid-19 testing detainees on arrival at Tinsley House STHF, or thereafter during their period of detention.
Lack of a stringent policy of compulsory facemask wearing and a persistent approach to social distancing by detainees and staff around the centre at the STHF.
Ensuring the Tinsley House safer community meetings are relevant and attractive for detainees; adults-at-risk meetings allow time for specific issues; and diversity and race relations meetings adopt a focused approach.
Early identification of protected characteristics among the detainee population to fully comply with the spirit of the Equality Act 2010.
Provision of tablet computers in the library at Tinsley House to enable detainees to download materials.
Review of the portfolio of educational and other activities to focus specifically on the preparation of detainees for their release or removal from the UK, including incorporating more online courses with portable certificates.
While the number of detainees submitting formal complaints at the IRC in the first three months of 2020 was relatively low it remains difficult to monitor how well and how fairly they were handled. Feedback from the complainants is not usually forthcoming given the often lengthy timescales of investigation and reporting back involved, which often means that the complainant has long since left the IRC before the outcome of the complaint is known. The success rate of complaints being upheld remains proportionately low, and it is not possible to understand why, for example, a relatively high proportion are withdrawn at some stage in the process.
Property issues are much more likely to become an issue should Tinsley House continue as a STHF, as there is much opportunity for small amounts of property to go missing when detainees arrive in small boats and come directly from the Kent intake team at Dover to Tinsley House STHF. In November, for example, bags of property relating to 40 different detainees were difficult to identify when they were taken off the coach, as apparently all labelling had been washed off in the rain.
In our 2019 annual report, we recommended that healthcare staff should consider the reintroduction of monthly patient consultative forums, which had been discontinued early in 2019. It was our view that these forums had provided a valuable opportunity to engage with detainees and gather feedback on any healthcare issues they would like to raise.
Recommendations
to reconsider its policy of allowing room sharing at Tinsley House STHF by multiples of detainees during the currency of the pandemic, simply because they may have spent time together in small boats or on coaches en route to the centre.
Recommendation 2
to reconsider its current policy of not Covid-19 testing detainees on arrival at Tinsley House STHF, or thereafter during their period of detention.
Recommendation 3
to consider requiring the STHF to adopt a more stringent policy of compulsory facemask wearing and a more persistent approach to social distancing by detainees and staff around the centre.
Recommendation 4
to ensure that HOIE Rule 35 notification responses are tailored to the individuals to whom they relate, and that those responses are genuinely meaningful.
Recommendation 5
to continue to monitor the handling of detainee complaints concerning the performance of solicitors giving advice and assistance at Tinsley House IRC and STHF.
Recommendation 6
to ensure, as part of its approach to reconsidering the format of meetings at the centre, that the Tinsley House safer community meetings are organised in a way that makes them relevant and attractive for detainees to attend; that the adults-at-risk meetings are organised to allow time for the appropriate consideration of specific Tinsley House adults-at-risk issues; and that the terms of reference of the diversity and race relations meetings adopt a more focused approach to issues of equality and diversity.
Recommendation 7
to continue to explore ways of early identification of protected characteristics among the detainee population at Tinsley House, in order to comply fully with the Equality Act 2010.
Recommendation 8
to continue to explore ways of providing tablet computers in the library at Tinsley House, to enable detainees to download materials, subject to appropriate security checks.
Recommendation 9
to undertake, in consultation with classroom teachers, a review of the portfolio of educational and other activities at Tinsley House, in order to focus specifically on the preparation of detainees for their release back into the community or their removal from the UK. We ask, in particular, for a review of the content and delivery of these courses and sessions, with a view to incorporating more online courses with portable certificates.
Applications to the IMB
| Category | Current | Previous |
|---|---|---|
| Access to/provision of education, training, work | 0 | 0 |
| Accommodation (including transfers) | 0 | 1 |
| Discrimination (including disability) | 0 | 0 |
| Food | 0 | 0 |
| Health care (including mental health) | 0 | 0 |
| Immigration issues (including Rule 35 concerns) | 0 | 2 |
| Other (including Rule 40/42 concerns) | 0 | 1 |
| Property | 0 | 2 |
| Staff conduct | 0 | 0 |
| TOTAL | 0 | 6 |
Related inspections & investigations
Safety 3
· Respect 3
· Activity 3
· Release 3