Report on an Unannounced Inspection of Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre

By The HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (UK)

Yarl’s Wood is an immigration removal centre (IRC) located near Bedford which, since 2007, has been operated on behalf of the Home Office by Serco. At the time of our inspection there were 347 detainees, of whom about 40 were women held on a separate wing. This inspection is our first at the centre since 2017. During that time it has faced the impact of COVID-19, changes to its function, and latterly a concerted indiscipline which led to the escape of 13 detainees. The centre was calm during the inspection but there was a tangible change in atmosphere from our previous visit. There were more detainees, more protests and more evident frustration, fuelled by longer periods of cumulative detention without enough progress on immigration cases: 32 people had been detained for over six months and eight for over a year. Our assessments of a healthy establishment evidenced the deterioration. At this inspection the provision of activity had clearly worsened, and of even greater concern, safety outcomes were no longer sufficiently good. Late or out of hours arrival remained the experience of many new to the centre, especially women, who were often transferred long distances. Yarl’s Wood held far more women than the main designated women’s centre at Derwentside, which was well-resourced but poorly located. Reception and welfare assessments were reasonable, although induction procedures were inconsistent. Violence was uncommon, but nearly half of men and about a quarter of women still told us that they felt unsafe. Interviews with detainees suggested the more numerous national groupings and the prevalence of former prisoners may have added to some anxieties, and this was probably not helped by the way petty rule breaking was overlooked. Serco’s middle managers were offering staff useful support but needed to be clearer and more consistent with them about the maintenance of standards. Use of force was infrequent and usually low level, and oversight was generally reasonable, but we were troubled to find that at least one example of potentially dangerous practice by staff during an incident had not been identified by managers. We were also concerned about the blurring of accountability for the oversight and application of separation before charter removals. There was little self-harm, but many detainees responding to our survey indicated that they had felt depressed at the centre, and the lack of information relating to immigration case progression was often cited as contributory factor in self-harm case management documentation. Some detainees whose release had been agreed in principle continued to be held for long periods due to a lack of approved bail accommodation. One detainee, for example, was held for almost eight months awaiting suitable accommodation

London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2023. 60p.