Section Three The second year – activities and key issues by type of detention Immigration detention Throughout the UK, immigration detention facilities are monitored by HMIP and IMBs. HMIP regularly inspects all immigration removal centres (IRCs) and short-term holding facilities (STHFs), as well as escorting arrangements for immigration detainees. Each IRC, of which there are 11, also has its own IMB, made up of volunteers from the local community, who regularly visit the centre and assess the treatment of detainees. In addition, there are three IMBs for some STHFs at airports and reporting centres.37 However, not all STHFs are monitored by IMBs. Due to budget cuts, the previously agreed rollout of new boards for the remaining STHFs in the UK has been halted. Other NPM members involved in monitoring immigration detention include Ofsted, MWCS and the OCC. Ofsted participates in HMIPled inspections of IRCs by assessing the learning and skills provision for detainees, while MWCS may visit people with mental disorder who are detained at Dungavel IRC, in Scotland. The OCC has undertaken periodic visits to facilities where families may be detained, with the aim of promoting and protecting children’s rights. Its reports have a strong focus on the experience and welfare of children and young people. In 2010–11, HMIP published reports of inspections at six IRCs and nine STHFs. It also published two inspection reports on immigration escorting arrangements.38 HMIP noted uneven progress and much inconsistency across IRCs, publishing both its best inspection report and one of its worst. Dungavel became the first centre where outcomes for detainees were assessed as good across all four of HMIP’s tests of a healthy establishment (safety, respect, purposeful activity and preparation for release). In relation to safety, for example, HMIP found that detainees felt extremely safe, there were positive staff–detainee relationships and there was minimal use of force. By contrast, safety at the newly opened Brook House IRC was poor; there was a high level of bullying and violence, and the use of force by staff was frequent. Detainees there lacked confidence in staff’s ability to protect them or manage difficult situations. In the first annual report of the NPM, IMBs noted their concern about the building or refurbishment of the immigration detention estate using criteria that would normally apply to prisons. This concern was borne out in HMIP inspections. Indeed, HMIP noted that the design of some IRCs was more austere and restrictive than in many prisons. The physical environment of many facilities was a particular concern. More positively, HMIP found that the range of activities available had improved in response to detainees being held for longer periods. It also found that most detainees had reasonable freedom of movement; however, this varied between centres: detainees could move around for 19.5 hours a day at one centre but less than 10 hours at another. HMIP expects that those held in detention centres are able to keep in contact with the outside world and are prepared for their release, transfer or removal from the UK. 37 One of these boards monitors holding facilities at Heathrow Airport; another monitors the airports and reporting centre in Glasgow and Edinburgh; and the third covers the North and Midlands area, which includes the airports and reporting centres in Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds. 38 All reports are available at: www.justice.gov.uk/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmi-prisons/index.htm 43