24–28 May 2010 by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons. Report compiled July 2010, published Thursday 7th October 2010
The main safety concern for detainees, as in other IRCs, was their anxiety about their immigration cases. Inspectors were thus concerned to find that:
- on-site UK Border Agency (UKBA) induction interviews were poor, and reviews of detention were uninformative and sometimes late;
- responses to rule 35 letters (claiming that a detainee was unfit to be detained) were sporadic
- although Refugee and Migrant Justice provided good independent advice, it was not clear whether that service would be maintained now that they have gone into administration;
- there was no coordinated or specialist welfare support; and
- unlike in privately run centres, detainees still had no access to controlled email or internet, severely restricting effective communication with family and friends, particularly overseas
- violence reduction strategies and staff supervision of detainees required some improvement
- some governance procedures needed improvement
- Some of the dormitory accommodation was unsuitable
- limited use of interpretation, even for confidential matters, and the limited availability of translated documents to provide key information to detainees
- Survey responses from non-English speakers were significantly worse than those from other detainees
- primary mental health provision was underdeveloped, as were services for those with substance use problems
- Free movement around the centre was too restricted, with evening lock-up time too early
- centre was still not performing well enough in relation to preparation for removal, release or transfer
- staff were not able to ensure that detainees' concerns were identified and dealt with
Recommendations, housekeeping and good practice the report lists 145 areas where improvement is needed
Introduction from the report
The full announced inspection of Dover Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) took place in May 2010, before I took up my appointment. The inspection took place, and the initial draft of this report was written, during the tenure of my predecessor, Dame Anne Owers. I am grateful for her comments and advice about the report.
Dover is one of the three IRCs run by the Prison Service. In spite of its large proportion of ex¬prisoners, it has had reasonably positive inspection reports. However, at the last inspection, there was some concern that it was developing an overly prison-like culture. It is welcome that this inspection did not find this to be the case in general, except for the intrusive and unnecessary amounts of razor wire within the centre's perimeter.
Dover was a reasonably safe centre, though violence reduction strategies and staff supervision of detainees required some improvement, as did arrangements for detainees on their first night in the centre - often after unnecessarily long journeys. Self-harm was low and the use of force and separation had reduced, though some governance procedures needed improvement.
As in other IRCs, the main safety concern for detainees was their anxiety and insecurity about their immigration cases. Given that, it was of some concern that on-site UK Border Agency (UKBA) induction interviews we observed were poor, reviews of detention were uninformative and sometimes late, and responses to rule 35 letters (claiming that a detainee was unfit to be detained) were sporadic. To some extent, that was mitigated by the very good standard of independent advice provided by Refugee and Migrant Justice (RMJ) - though it is not clear whether the quality and extent of that service has been maintained, now that RMJ has gone into administration.
Some of the dormitory accommodation was unsuitable, especially as detainees could be locked in for lengthy periods overnight. Relationships between staff and detainees were reasonable, and staff made attempts to deal with detainees' problems. However, we were concerned at the limited use of interpretation, even for confidential matters, and the limited availability of translated documents to provide key information to detainees. Survey responses from non-English speakers were significantly worse than those from other detainees. Health services were reasonably good, and commissioned by the primary care trust, though primary mental health provision was underdeveloped, as were services for those with substance use problems.
Dover provided a range of work and education opportunities, sufficient for around half of the population. However, they were poorly coordinated, and education in particular was underused, with insufficient provision in the evenings and at weekends. The range and quality of work varied, though there were some opportunities to develop skills. PE facilities were excellent and well used. In general, there was not enough of the right kind of activity for the significant number of detainees who stayed at the centre for long periods. Free movement around the centre was too restricted, with evening lock-up time too early.
The centre was still not performing well enough in relation to preparation for removal, release or transfer. Unlike in privately run centres, detainees still had no access to controlled email or internet, severely restricting effective communication with families and friends, particularly overseas. There was no coordinated or specialist welfare support in the centre, and staff were not able to ensure that detainees' concerns were identified and dealt with. Voluntary organisations provided an excellent service, but were over-reliant on self-referral from detainees.
Dover holds a large proportion of ex-prisoners in a rather forbidding site. It was, nevertheless, providing a reasonably safe and decent environment, and a range of activities for detainees, a third of whom spent over four months there. There were two main issues that needed to be addressed. One, for the Prison Service, was the absence of internet and email access and of sufficient coordinated welfare support, to assist with practical problems and prepare detainees for release or removal. The other, for UKBA, was the poor quality of on-site information for, and responses to, detainees who were extremely concerned about the progress of their cases. This will present even more of a challenge, with the collapse of Refugee and Migrant Justice, who were providing good independent on-site advice.
Nick Hardwick HM Chief Inspector of Prisons July 2010
- on-site UK Border Agency (UKBA) induction interviews were poor, and reviews of detention were uninformative and sometimes late;
- responses to rule 35 letters (claiming that a detainee was unfit to be detained) were sporadic
- although Refugee and Migrant Justice provided good independent advice, it was not clear whether that service would be maintained now that they have gone into administration;
- there was no coordinated or specialist welfare support; and
- unlike in privately run centres, detainees still had no access to controlled email or internet, severely restricting effective communication with family and friends, particularly overseas
- violence reduction strategies and staff supervision of detainees required some improvement
- some governance procedures needed improvement
- Some of the dormitory accommodation was unsuitable
- limited use of interpretation, even for confidential matters, and the limited availability of translated documents to provide key information to detainees
- Survey responses from non-English speakers were significantly worse than those from other detainees
- primary mental health provision was underdeveloped, as were services for those with substance use problems
- Free movement around the centre was too restricted, with evening lock-up time too early
- centre was still not performing well enough in relation to preparation for removal, release or transfer
- staff were not able to ensure that detainees' concerns were identified and dealt with
Recommendations, housekeeping and good practice the report lists 145 areas where improvement is needed
Introduction from the report
The full announced inspection of Dover Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) took place in May 2010, before I took up my appointment. The inspection took place, and the initial draft of this report was written, during the tenure of my predecessor, Dame Anne Owers. I am grateful for her comments and advice about the report.
Dover is one of the three IRCs run by the Prison Service. In spite of its large proportion of ex¬prisoners, it has had reasonably positive inspection reports. However, at the last inspection, there was some concern that it was developing an overly prison-like culture. It is welcome that this inspection did not find this to be the case in general, except for the intrusive and unnecessary amounts of razor wire within the centre's perimeter.
Dover was a reasonably safe centre, though violence reduction strategies and staff supervision of detainees required some improvement, as did arrangements for detainees on their first night in the centre - often after unnecessarily long journeys. Self-harm was low and the use of force and separation had reduced, though some governance procedures needed improvement.
As in other IRCs, the main safety concern for detainees was their anxiety and insecurity about their immigration cases. Given that, it was of some concern that on-site UK Border Agency (UKBA) induction interviews we observed were poor, reviews of detention were uninformative and sometimes late, and responses to rule 35 letters (claiming that a detainee was unfit to be detained) were sporadic. To some extent, that was mitigated by the very good standard of independent advice provided by Refugee and Migrant Justice (RMJ) - though it is not clear whether the quality and extent of that service has been maintained, now that RMJ has gone into administration.
Some of the dormitory accommodation was unsuitable, especially as detainees could be locked in for lengthy periods overnight. Relationships between staff and detainees were reasonable, and staff made attempts to deal with detainees' problems. However, we were concerned at the limited use of interpretation, even for confidential matters, and the limited availability of translated documents to provide key information to detainees. Survey responses from non-English speakers were significantly worse than those from other detainees. Health services were reasonably good, and commissioned by the primary care trust, though primary mental health provision was underdeveloped, as were services for those with substance use problems.
Dover provided a range of work and education opportunities, sufficient for around half of the population. However, they were poorly coordinated, and education in particular was underused, with insufficient provision in the evenings and at weekends. The range and quality of work varied, though there were some opportunities to develop skills. PE facilities were excellent and well used. In general, there was not enough of the right kind of activity for the significant number of detainees who stayed at the centre for long periods. Free movement around the centre was too restricted, with evening lock-up time too early.
The centre was still not performing well enough in relation to preparation for removal, release or transfer. Unlike in privately run centres, detainees still had no access to controlled email or internet, severely restricting effective communication with families and friends, particularly overseas. There was no coordinated or specialist welfare support in the centre, and staff were not able to ensure that detainees' concerns were identified and dealt with. Voluntary organisations provided an excellent service, but were over-reliant on self-referral from detainees.
Dover holds a large proportion of ex-prisoners in a rather forbidding site. It was, nevertheless, providing a reasonably safe and decent environment, and a range of activities for detainees, a third of whom spent over four months there. There were two main issues that needed to be addressed. One, for the Prison Service, was the absence of internet and email access and of sufficient coordinated welfare support, to assist with practical problems and prepare detainees for release or removal. The other, for UKBA, was the poor quality of on-site information for, and responses to, detainees who were extremely concerned about the progress of their cases. This will present even more of a challenge, with the collapse of Refugee and Migrant Justice, who were providing good independent on-site advice.
Nick Hardwick HM Chief Inspector of Prisons July 2010
e-mail:
Homepage:
