Latest annual report highlights persistent weaknesses in detention screening and in identifying and responding to vulnerability
![Yarl's Wood Immigration Removal Centre [Source: Wikipedia]](/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/stock/Yarlswood_IDC_-_geograph.org_.uk_-_78530.jpg?itok=BkXF9rTy)
The latest annual report by His Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons for England and Wales (HMI Prisons) was published this week and it finds that conditions across the immigration detention estate had generally improved over the past year, with several immigration removal centres (IRCs) making significant progress following previous critical inspections.
You can download the full 66-page report here. Section 5 covers immigration detention and can be read below.
The report, which covers 1 April 2025 and 31 March 2026, said treatment of detainees was "generally decent" and highlighted notable improvements at Harmondsworth, Brook House, Dungavel and Derwentside immigration removal centres IRCs. Harmondsworth received particular praise for the progress it had made since its previous inspection. In last year's annual report, HMI Prisons said the centre had recorded the worst inspection outcomes for conditions and treatment that inspectors had ever seen at an IRC.
In this year's annual report, inspectors also found that detainees in short-term holding facilities generally received reasonable care, although too many people were held beyond time limits and inspectors raised concerns about conditions for women, limited access to interpretation services and a lack of internet access across the estate.
Deportation flights were generally well managed and standards in the treatment of detainees had been maintained.
However, HMI Prisons said longstanding concerns remained about the prison-like conditions at some IRCs and identified persistent weaknesses in how vulnerable detainees were identified and protected. It found detention decisions did not always take sufficient account of mental ill-health, trauma, trafficking indicators or the risk of self-harm, while safeguards intended to protect vulnerable people continued to be applied inconsistently.
The annual report's full section on immigration detention is excerpted and reproduced below:
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales
Annual Report 2025–26
HC 432
[…]
Five
Immigration detention
• Positive efforts to raise standards following previous poor inspections of IRCs had been driven by investment in infrastructure and staffing.
• There were persistent weaknesses in detention screening and in processes for identifying and responding to vulnerability.
• Detainees in STHFs received reasonable care, but too many were held for excessive periods.
• Overseas escort arrangements were generally managed well.
Notable improvements following critical inspections
This section draws on three full inspections, at Colnbrook, Dungavel and Derwentside IRCs, and the first two independent reviews of progress in the immigration detention estate at Brook House and Harmondsworth IRCs.
At Brook House and Harmondsworth, inspectors found substantial improvements in treatment and conditions. Progress at Harmondsworth was particularly striking, given that it had previously received the worst inspection outcomes of any IRC.
| We found that there had been an exceptional response to our negative inspection findings, resulting in good progress in 11 of our 14 areas of concern, including all the priorities that we set out at the full inspection. Harmondsworth |
There had been significant investment in staffing at both sites. At Harmondsworth, staff numbers had doubled, with improved management support and supervision on the units. At Brook House, detainee custody officers and frontline managers were more visible on the wings, and leadership had strengthened across key functions including health care, reception, and welfare services. The centres had also undergone substantial refurbishment, although longstanding problems, such as poor ventilation and a lack of open, green activity space, remained unresolved.
During the inspection of Derwentside, inspectors found an impressive and systematic response to earlier concerns. Leaders had addressed deficiencies in governance, particularly in the oversight of use of force. Derwentside was also notably less prison-like than other IRCs, with good efforts to soften the environment.
However, too few female staff were available to support the women held at Derwentside. At Dungavel, we had ongoing concerns about the situation of the small number of women detained there:
| … women continued to receive unequal treatment. Leaders acknowledged this but had taken too little action to address the shortfalls, which included restricted movement, limited access to the regime, and less contact than their male counterparts with professionals such as the welfare team and Home Office staff. Dungavel |
At Colnbrook, while significant ongoing concerns included the centre's prison-like design and a lack of capability among many staff, we also saw good leadership and improvements that included an expanded welfare service and better overall staffing levels.
Ongoing concerns for vulnerable detainees
The Home Office Detention Engagement Teams (DETs) were accessible and met regularly with detainees. However, too many detainees continued to be held for excessive periods, and Rule 35 (see Glossary) safeguards remained weak. Rule 35 appointments often took too long, with three week waits at Brook House and two weeks at Harmondsworth. Very few Rule 35(2) reports (risk of suicide) were submitted, despite clear indicators of need. For instance, only eight reports were completed at Harmondsworth in the six months before our visit, despite 28 people being placed on constant watch because of an imminent risk of self-harm in the same period. At Dungavel, just three reports were submitted in the preceding six months, despite 36 constant watches, and at Colnbrook, only five were submitted despite 37 constant watches.
| In our review of recent cases, we found two examples of health care staff failing to submit a Rule 35 report when it was required for suicidal intention, despite the staff considering in one of these cases that there was a high risk the detainee would take his life. Colnbrook |
In too many cases, detention decisions had not taken sufficient account of mental ill-health, trauma histories, trafficking indicators, or self-harm risk.
| In one case we reviewed, the decision-maker said a detainee had no known vulnerabilities, despite him telling immigration staff that he had a brain injury, depression and PTSD, and medical records confirming that he had been assessed with a learning difficulty and was prescribed medication for depression. Brook House |
At Dungavel, a woman had been described by the Home Office's arresting officer as severely malnourished and struggling to communicate. She was eventually assessed as lacking mental capacity and hospitalised under the Mental Health Act. However, on the day of her detention, the Detention Gatekeeper had authorised detention following receipt of a referral which stated that that she was 'in good general health with no vulnerability concerns'. Similarly, at Derwentside, some women were detained despite clear indicators such as serious mental illness, pregnancy, or a history of gender-based violence.
Reasonable care in short-term holding facilities
Inspectors conducted two national inspections of short-term holding facilities (STHFs), covering three residential sites and 10 holding rooms in immigration reporting centres.
Residential STHFs were generally calm and well managed, and detainees spoke highly of the care they received. Staffing levels were good, and officers were readily available to help detainees and answer questions. At Larne, we were particularly impressed by the support the experienced and capable staff group gave to detainees. Violence and self-harm were rare. Swinderby had a welcoming setting with good open spaces, but some areas of Larne and Manchester remained austere.
Too many had been detained in breach of time limits. For example, at Larne, 16 people – including one woman detained in error – had been held for over five days, with no indication that any were imminently to be removed. Women were not always adequately separated from men, creating potential safeguarding risks, and there were delays in issuing essential medication.
We also found generally good treatment of detainees in reporting centres but there was no access to fresh air or natural light in most locations. In some, there was a lack of space or privacy for searches and interviews. Facilities for women were particularly poor in some locations, including Loughborough, where toilets were shared and women were held with unrelated men. Across all STHFs, detainees continued to have no access to the internet, and the use of professional interpretation was too limited.
Overseas escorts generally managed well
We inspected three overseas removal flights – to India, Nigeria and Ghana, and France – and found that each was well-organised and conducted with care. Most staff interactions were professional, courteous and respectful. There was little use of force but while waist restraint belts were generally applied appropriately, they were not always removed promptly for compliant detainees.
The flight to France was the first inspection of 'one-in, one-out' removals involving people who had recently arrived at the Kent coast. This flight stood out for its complexity. Detainees spoke multiple languages but interpreting was inadequate, leaving many unable to ask questions or understand the process. Almost no information was provided about what awaited them on arrival, heightening their anxiety. We also noted some unprofessional staff behaviour on this removal.
On the India and Nigeria and Ghana flights, women did not have easy access to menstrual products. Mobile phones were also removed too early, limiting detainees' ability to stay in touch with family and legal advisers.