Section two Focus on detention issues Conditions and regime The conditions of separation in two of the IRCs – one with a dedicated separation unit, and one with a single room used for separation – were found to be stark and poor. The third IRC had good conditions in its separation unit, including an association room that was used regularly. Rule 40 cells were sparsely furnished. Cells were clean and had properly screened toilets and showers. Case study: poor conditions during separation The separation unit in one IRC consisted of eight cells, including a gated constant watch cell. The environment was generally poor. Although the two communal corridors were reasonably clean, they were narrow and had little natural light, which created an oppressive environment. Most cells were dirty and some toilets were filthy. Some cells had televisions and all had electricity. The exercise yard was stark and cage-like. A basic daily regime included showers and exercise, but in many instances detainees were kept in their cells, separated from others for over 22 hours a day. Detainees were allowed to use their mobile phones while locked in their cells. Rule 40 detainees could in theory attend activities such as education, library and gym after a risk assessment, but in reality this rarely happened. Procedures and governance In two of the IRCs, the NPM member found problems with the documentation applying to the separation of detainees. In one, it did not always clearly justify the reasons for separation, and Home Office and health care staff did not always record their visits to the unit, although they did make regular visits. In another, Home Office signatures were missing on some documents and in one instance, Home Office staff had not seen a detainee before he was taken off Rule 40. Good practice in one IRC A segregation monitoring and review group met monthly to monitor the number of those held in segregation and the reasons behind this. A strategy document had been published that described working practices and management arrangements. All cases were reviewed every day by a senior manager and detainees were usually seen by a member of the IMB, a chaplain and a doctor. Conclusion These accounts show a wide variation in the conditions of isolation in the immigration detention estate. There was inconsistent application of the safeguards that should be in place for all instances of isolation, some of which amounted to solitary confinement. Given this, it is essential that all NPM members with a role in monitoring immigration detention pay close attention to isolation practices. Police and border force custody Police custody facilities in the UK are inspected regularly by HMIC, HMI Prisons, HMICS and CJINI, and independent custody visitors (members of ICVA, ICVS and NIPBICVS) visit routinely to check that the rights and entitlements of detainees are granted and their welfare is cared for. Evidence from two police custody inspections in England and Wales and one inspection of Border Force customs custody (at airports and ports), as well as comments from two visiting bodies were included in this review. 41