Inspection report concludes that Brook House is less safe than two years ago

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons has published a report of an unannounced inspection of Brook House immigration removal centre. The inspection took place between 5 and 22 August 2024 and does not make pretty reading.

The last inspection took place in June 2022. Since then, of the four tests for a healthy establishment, the areas of safety and respect have gotten worse, activities have improved, and preparation for removal and release has remained the same.

Of the 15 concerns raised in the inspection, four of the six priority concerns have only been partially addressed, and two not addressed. Five of the key concerns have not been addressed and one in relation to Rwanda is no longer relevant. In total, only one concern has been addressed in full.

Concerns were raised again in this report about the resemblance of Brook House to a prison that, although being operated at 100 people below capacity, feels crowded. The reason the centre is operating below capacity is seemingly to relieve the pressure on services. Health care provision was described as “stretched to breaking point” in a situation where 35% of those who responded to the inspectorate’s survey reported feeling suicidal at some point during their detention.

One person had been held in detention for over 500 days, ten people for over a year and 24 for over six months. Around 60% were people who had been in prison previously, 41% arriving directly from prison. 28% of people at Brook House at the time of the inspection were Albanian.

58% of people leaving the centre in the previous six months had been released into the community, which as usual raises questions about why they were detained to begin with. It is almost certain that the majority of these people were unable to access proper legal advice to properly resolve their case prior to detention because of the legal aid crisis.

Issues when entering and leaving detention

In the six months before the inspection there had been an average of 70 people arriving each week. Some people were unaware that they were being taken to the detention centre and a large proportion of people were taken there overnight without a good reason for this, 28% between 10pm and 6am and 16% between midnight and 4am.

On arrival, detainees were asked to sign documents without having the contents explained to them and staff were observed using “hand gestures” rather than interpreters for personal questions.

Bail paperwork issued to those released is provided only in English and is not always translated. Many detainees had been granted bail but were still detained due to a lack of bail accommodation. The number of people in this situation is not monitored and the Home Office wrongly said that there were no people in this position.

There is also a gap in data on the number of people being released to homelessness, the inspection found at least 20 in the past twelve months but said the number may have been higher. This included one person who had been assessed at level three of the adults at risk policy and who had mental health issues. Fortunately he was assisted by the Gatwick Detainees Welfare Group who provided him with accommodation for the four days it took for the Home Office to sort this out.

Safeguarding failures

Safeguarding at the centre remains inadequate. Almost one quarter of detainees had been assessed by the Home Office as being at the two higher levels of risk under the adults at risk policy, most commonly because they were victims of torture. Six were at level three which means that there was professional evidence that their detention was likely to cause harm.

The Home Office had not advised the detention centre about two of the people who had been assessed at level three, meaning that they were not provided with appropriate support. One person assessed at level three had been detained for a year despite little prospect of removal for most of that period and a deterioration in his mental health. Concerningly, only 32% of rule 35 reports had resulted in a decision to release, down considerably from 44% in the last inspection in June 2022.

One person with paranoid schizophrenia was rushed from prison to immigration detention without proper consideration of his needs. His condition then deteriorated to the point that a psychiatrist recommended transfer to hospital under the Mental Health Act. This is only one example given in the report of vulnerabilities not being adequately identified or managed.

Improved Home Office contact

The inspection found improvement in Home Office activity within the centre in providing detainees with information on their cases. The previous inspection found there were around 150 contacts between detainees and the Home Office’s detention engagement team per week whereas this was now 600.

Complaints and violence against staff

In the 12 months before the inspection, three staff members had been dismissed for “inappropriate conduct” and two were suspended while under investigation. 17% of detainees reported verbal abuse from staff, up from 3% at the last inspection. Assaults on staff have increased from 80 in the six months before this inspection, compared to 14 at the last inspection.

A serious allegation about the attitudes of Serco staff towards a member of the healthcare team was under investigation, and concerns had also been raised and action taken about the attitudes of health staff. Five complaints about mental health services from a sample checked by the inspectorate had not been answered, two had been outstanding for almost four months.

Inadequate provision of legal assistance

Only 49% of those who responded to the survey said they had received free legal advice in the centre and 21% had received a legal visit. The Legal Aid Agency needs to do much better to ensure that concerns about inadequate provision of legal advice are raised and can be dealt with, as the inspection found that detainees were unaware that there was a process to report concerns about lawyers working under the detained duty advice scheme.

Summary of concerns raised

Priority concerns

1. The number of recorded fights, assaults on staff and uses of force had risen substantially since the previous inspection, and leaders had not made sufficient use of data to understand why this was the case.

2. Policies and procedures to minimise the length of detention and protect the most vulnerable were not effective enough. The centre was unaware of 31 detainees assessed at the higher levels of the adults at risk policy, and Rule 35 reports (see Glossary) were not always submitted when necessary. The length of detention had increased and case progression was often slow.

3. Over half of operational staff had less than two years’ experience, there were pockets of immature and unprofessional behaviour. Some officers continued to congregate in offices instead of proactively managing the wings.

4. The centre continued to look and feel like a prison, and not enough had been done to improve the environment.

5. There were serious problems affecting the staffing, culture and morale of the health services team, which was not delivering a good enough service to detainees. Partnership working to help resolve these issues was poor.

Key concerns

6. Not enough care was given to detainees on arrival and during their early days in detention. The reception area was chaotic, and induction was not carried out consistently.

7. Some security measures were disproportionate. In particular, the centre was now routinely handcuffing detainees on external escorts.

8. There was increasing availability of illicit drugs in the centre, but planning and resources to tackle the problem were inadequate.

9. Leaders had limited awareness of diverse needs in the centre as protected characteristic information about detainees was not systematically captured on their arrival.

10. The education provision had been poorly attended for a long time, but little had been done to review the curriculum to make it more appealing to detainees.

11. The library was poor and little used. The room was no longer suitable for library activities, and most of the book stock had been removed, with the remaining collection held in cupboards.

12. The welfare service was under-resourced and staff lacked space to see detainees privately.

13. In the previous year, at least 20 detainees had been released homeless, including people assessed as vulnerable.