Many detainees had experienced excessive and disorientating moves around the detention estate. The new reception area was welcoming but could not always cope with the number of detainees passing through.

Access to legal representation was limited, and legal resources in the centre were poor.

On-site immigration staff were not visible or proactive enough and most Rule 35 letters had received no replies.

Staff did not interact sufficiently with detainees and there was insufficient use of interpretation.

Detainees with disabilities were not effectively identified.

Not enough was done systematically to communicate with detainees who did not speak fluent English.

There were significant concerns about health services management and provision, and this was the single biggest area of detainee complaint.

The quality of food was variable.

Detainees had reasonable access to the internet but some websites and email providers were inappropriately blocked.

Pre-removal strategy meetings were held for some detainees, but there was a lack of systematic pre-release assessment.

There were problems with ventilation in the rooms.

Residential staff were unaware of personal evacuation plans for detainees with mobility problems,

Toilets, baths and showers were not kept clean, were in a poor state of repair, could not withstand the amount of use, and were often closed off because of flooding.

The continued detention of detainees with mental illness was not fully reviewed in accordance with the rules.

Introduction
Harmondsworth immigration removal centre has had a troubled history. In 2006, we described Harmondsworth as the worst immigration removal centre we had inspected. Since then, inspections have charted slow but steady progress from this low point. This inspection showed that, while there was still more to be done, there had been demonstrable improvements in both culture and regime. However, the imminent opening of a new block, doubling the size of the centre and built to higher security prison standards, would pose a challenge to these improvements.

Detainees' first arrival in the centre was sometimes after excessive and unexplained movements around the detention estate. The reception area, though welcoming, was small and would be insufficient for an expanded population, and risk assessments needed improvement. Freedom of movement around the centre had lightened the atmosphere, and appeared to have contributed to a drop in incidents, use of force and separation. Detainees in general felt safe in the centre, but procedures for monitoring and preventing suicide, self-harm and bullying needed further development. Feelings of insecurity were strongly linked to uncertainty about immigration cases, not helped by lack of sufficient legal advice, limited contact with the immigration team and frequently uninformative reviews, which did not fully take into account evidence of mental ill-health or previous torture.

Relationships between detainees and staff were cordial, and improving. However, staff were not sufficiently proactive in supporting detainees and identifying their concerns, and there was insufficient use of interpretation. There was no evidence of tension or conflict among the many different nationalities and ethnic groups in the centre, though diversity structures were underdeveloped. Faith provision was good, and the chaplaincy provided both care and activities. Healthcare, however, was unacceptably poor - both in terms of the approach of health care staff and the quality and quantity of provision, particularly in relation to mental health, primary care and clinical governance. This requires urgent attention.

The range of available activities had increased, with enough work - some of it meaningful - for about a third of detainees, and opportunities for education. The art department was particularly good. However, work and education were inadequately promoted, and take-up was relatively low. There was good PE provision, though access was not effectively monitored.

The welfare team provided a good and much-needed service, but they were overstretched and sometimes redeployed. Detainees' access to the internet and to mobile phones had greatly improved contact with the outside world, though some internet sites were inappropriately blocked. Visits arrangements were good. Pre-discharge meetings were held for potentially problematic or risky removals, but there was no systematic process of pre-release assessment.

This is the most positive report we have issued on Harmondsworth. It reflects considerable work by managers and staff to improve the approach and provision at a difficult centre, with a mixed population, some of it very transient. This is to be commended. There is, however, further work to be done, both by the centre and the UK Border Agency.

We were also very concerned about the potential impact of the new building, about to be opened in June. This would provide prison-type accommodation, in small and somewhat oppressive cells - at odds with the atmosphere and facilities in the current centre. It would also double the population, making Harmondsworth the biggest removal centre in Europe. This combination will pose a considerable challenge to managers in seeking to embed recent progress and run a single, safe and decent centre.

Anne Owers

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons March 2010