Introduction

Yarl's Wood Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) has had a well-documented and difficult history, having been virtually destroyed by fire following a major disturbance shortly after it opened. At the time of this inspection, it had been re-opened for 18 months: at first building up a population of women and, a few weeks before the inspection, accepting family groups.

Some lessons had clearly been learnt from past events. Fire hazard systems and procedures were excellent, and the standard of accommodation was extremely good, if very institutional. The independent voluntary Befriending Group considered that there had been significant improvement since the centre re-opened, and found that its services were welcomed much more than previously. Centre staff were encouraged to focus on dynamic security, and made every effort to provide sufficient activity to keep detainees active and engaged during their mainly short stays at Yarl's Wood. This included culturally appropriate activities, jointly run by activities staff and teachers. However, educational provision was deficient particularly for children.

There were some other significant gaps. Although the new population was entirely composed of women and family groups, there had been insufficient attention to ensuring that staff training, and systems and procedures, properly reflected the needs of women and children. This had implications for safety which needed urgently to be addressed.

Detainees at Yarl's Wood were twice as likely to report feeling unsafe as in other centres. This may reflect the specific vulnerability of women, particularly those facing imminent removal. But it points to the need for more robust procedures to support that vulnerability and manage women at risk of self-harm. Procedures, such as the late notification of imminent removal, may have minimised serious incidents of self-harm in the centre; but they were likely simply to transfer the problem elsewhere - contributing for example to failed removals, with consequent distress and perhaps injury.

We were particularly concerned about the welfare of some of the children who were detained. The centre had made admirable efforts to provide a child-friendly environment: though child protection procedures needed improvement; and the education provision was inadequate, especially for older children. However, the main issue was the effect of detention itself on some children. We came across one autistic child, who had not eaten properly for four days, and three children who had been detained immediately before their GCSE exams. Two of those children were released following the inspection: but damage had already been done, and the systems in place were simply inadequate to pick this up routinely. This underlines the recommendation that we have repeatedly made: that the detention of children should be exceptional and that there must be independent and immediate welfare and needs assessments of each child.

During the inspection, inspectors observed staff dealing positively and respectfully with detainees - and we particularly commend the work of the activities, reception and visits staff. However, in our survey only two-thirds of detainees - significantly fewer than in other centres ¬said that most staff treated them with respect. In groups and conversations, there seemed to be particularly negative perceptions by women of African origin. Some of this related to alleged mistreatment at the time of removal, sometimes without sufficient warning; but some related to the attitude and behaviour of some centre staff. This is a matter that needs further investigation by managers, and the creation of a regular forum where detainees can discuss concerns. It also requires a more robust and better-used complaints procedure.

Yarl's Wood also exhibited problems common to other IRCs, and which need to be tackled across the detention estate. Child protection protocols had not been agreed with the local authority. There was insufficient monitoring and action on injuries sustained during removals, to take action where necessary and identify trends. Not enough information was routinely provided to allow the centre to make judgements about detainees' risks and vulnerability. The lack of formal welfare support meant that detainees had difficulty in ordering their affairs before removal; and there was still no controlled access to the internet to communicate cheaply and effectively with families overseas. We are pleased to see that action is being planned to tackle some of these deficits, which we have noted in all our inspection reports.

Some of the issues raised in this inspection can only be tackled through changes in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's procedures and practices. This is particularly the case in relation to the detention of children. Others, though, require action at local level. We found managers and staff receptive to our findings and recommendations. It was clear that they wanted to run a good and safe centre, and were all too aware of the consequences of not doing so.

Anne Owers
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
Yarl's Wood IRC May 2005

Download the full report: Yarl's Wood IRC final draft.pdf

Soource for this page: HM Chief Inspector of Prisons