Conditions for detainees, mostly women, in Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre had improved significantly in the two years since a previous highly critical report by HM Inspectorate of Prisons, inspectors found in 2017.

However, commenting on the June 2017 inspection, Peter Clarke, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, said the current management in the centre operated by Serco near Bedford were to some extent dealing with failings outside their control.

Some detainees were held for too long and, during the first six months of 2017, 67% of women had been released into the community – which, the report noted, “raised questions about the justification for detention in the first place.” Weaknesses in the handling of immigration casework by the Home Office, as well as some problems with health care at the centre, were having a “significant negative impact” on detainees.

The 2015 inspection was preceded by publicised allegations of abuse by staff and that inspection found large numbers of detainees showing evident signs of distress. The most noticeable change in 2017 was that the atmosphere across the centre was far calmer, more respectful and relaxed.

The handling of cases by the Home Office, however, was a principal area of concern:

• Nearly half of the detainees felt unsafe and this was found to be “largely an expression of concern as a result of uncertainty about the future and the prospect of removal from the UK.” Fewer detainees than in 2015 were being held for very long periods. At the time of the inspection, none had been held for over a year, although 14 had been held for between six months and a year.
• The quality of Rule 35 reports (assessments of vulnerable detainees) had improved, but not by enough, and inspectors were concerned by the continued detention of women who had been tortured. Almost a fifth of those in detention were assessed by the Home Office to be at the higher levels of risk in terms of vulnerability.
• Inspectors were also concerned to find two Rule 35 responses where the Home Office had refused, without explanation, to accept that rape came within the legal definition of torture. A study of a sample of Rule 35 cases “indicated that women were being detained despite professional evidence of torture, rape and trafficking, and in greater numbers than we have seen at previous inspections.”

During the inspection it was discovered that a doctor who had been employed at the centre since November 2016 did not have the required registration. “This was a serious matter and required a thorough investigation,” Mr Clarke said. Also, although health care provision overall had improved since 2015, inspectors were concerned to find that patients were put at risk through a lack of professional oversight of the centre’s pharmacy and some prescribing practices. NHS England and G4S were responsible for health care at Yarl’s Wood.

Among positive findings, inspectors noted there was little violence. The small number of allegations of inappropriate sexual behaviour by staff had been thoroughly investigated. One had been substantiated since the 2015 inspection, leading to the officer in question being dismissed, with a police investigation ongoing.

The range of activities for detainees was good. Security measures were by and large proportionate, the centre was clean and there was not the sense of restriction and confinement often found in such establishments. Women were able to move freely around the centre.

In terms of preparation for removal from the UK or release, access to phones was good, arrangements for visits generally good, and the Hibiscus resettlement project offered valuable support, particularly in some complex cases. However, Mr Clarke said, “the fact remains that around 70% of the women detained at Yarl’s Wood are released back into the community. The provision of welfare support for these women was far from systematic and needed to be improved.”

Overall, Mr Clarke said,

“The leadership and staff could and should take much of the credit for the improvements, but it was clearly a frustration for them that the centre was not able to gain higher assessments in some areas of this inspection because of failings that were outside their control. For instance, weaknesses in immigration casework and health care provision, which had a significant negative impact on the experiences of detainees, were the responsibility of the Home Office and the commissioned health care provider respectively. If I had invested the energy and commitment to making improvements at Yarl’s Wood that the current management team clearly have, I too would be frustrated.”

– ENDS –

Notes to editors

1. The report, published on 15 November 2017, is available here.
2. Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre, near Bedford, holds adult women and adult family groups. In addition, it has a small short-term holding facility for adult males who have arrived in the UK as clandestine migrants on freight lorries. There were more than 300 detainees at the time of the inspection.
3. In September 2016, the Home Office changed the definition of torture to be used in Rule 35 considerations. This was challenged in the courts. Pending the outcome of proceedings the Court has ordered the Home Office to use a broader definition of torture – one including actions of non-state actors, which would include rape regardless of the perpetrator – while the case awaited conclusion. In its ruling in October 2017, the High Court confirmed that the broad definition of torture should be used in Rule 35 considerations.
4. This unannounced inspection took place between 5-7 and 12-16 June 2017.
5. Please contact John Steele at HM Inspectorate of Prisons press office on 020 3334 0357 or 07880 787452, or at john.steele@justice.gsi.gov.uk if you would like more information.