Annual review highlights serious and systemic failings across immigration detention estate during year ending March 2025
His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales today published his annual report, covering the work of His Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons (HMI Prisons) from April 2024 to March 2025.
Charlie Taylor, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, noted in the report's introduction that HMI Prisons' inspection of Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) during the period revealed some of the worst conditions inspectors had ever encountered.
The report's section on immigration detention highlights serious and systemic failings across the estate during the year ending March 2025. Inspectors found dangerously poor conditions and unsafe environments at Harmondsworth during a July 2024 inspection, while the retendering process to run the IRC was described as "shambolic". A reinspection of Harmondsworth in April 2025, which found much improved conditions at the IRC, falls outside the scope of the annual report and is not covered in its findings.
There were some signs of progress in the period covered by the annual report, including improved treatment of small boat arrivals on the south coast and upgraded facilities at certain short-term holding sites, but serious concerns persisted. These included overcrowding, inadequate care for vulnerable detainees, and prolonged, often unnecessary, periods of detention.
Overseas removal operations were generally well-managed, but longstanding issues of oversight, vulnerability safeguards, and poor infrastructure persisted throughout the system.
The annual report's full section on immigration detention is excerpted and reproduced below:
HM INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales
Annual Report 2024–25
HC 1030
[...]
Four
Immigration detention
This section draws on the findings from inspections of two immigration removal centres (IRCs), south coast detention facilities, two national short-term holding facilities (STHFs), and a charter removal and two scheduled flight removals.
• Concerns over safety and conditions at IRCs, with worst ever judgements of an IRC at Harmondsworth.
• Improvements in detention of small boat arrivals at the south coast.
• Some improvements in conditions at STHFs, but not enough focus on vulnerability.
• Overseas removal operations were managed well.
Poor safety and unacceptable conditions at IRCs
We inspected Harmondsworth and Brook House, two large IRCs capable of holding around 1,000 people between them. Both centres held more detainees than they could effectively manage and neither was providing good enough care. Despite administrative immigration detention being a last resort that should not be used unless people can be removed reasonably quickly, only around a third of detainees at each site were deported. Over half were released, often after avoidable and stressful periods of detention. At Harmondsworth, one man was detained for over two years (confirmed following publication of the inspection report) and at Brook House one man was held for over 500 days.
| In one case, a detainee who claimed asylum in 2022 had still not been interviewed about his asylum claim by the end of a 26-week prison sentence in August 2023. He was only interviewed in January 2024, more than five months after he had been detained [and] assessed as a level 3 adult at risk… By the time of the inspection, he had still received no decision on his asylum claim. Harmondsworth |
At Harmondsworth we found the worst conditions and treatment that we have seen at an IRC. This was despite repeated warnings at two previous critical inspections. Action to support people at risk of self-harm was poor and there was another serious suicide attempt while we were on site. Since the last full inspection in 2017, violence had doubled, drug use had become an increasingly serious problem, and the centre had a pervasive smell of cannabis and tobacco. Staff lacked the authority or motivation to challenge poor behaviour, often retreating to offices with red tape across the door to deter any detainees from entering.
Inspectors were taken aback by the living conditions, especially on the older living units, where there was an air of neglect, with broken windows, missing or broken toilet seats and shower doors, dirty and messy cells and corridors.
| Home Office leaders had sanctioned the closure of one dilapidated residential wing for refurbishment, but another equally decrepit unit remained in use. Harmondsworth |
Our inspection of Harmondsworth also highlighted a high level of unmet mental health need and an under-resourced psychology provision which was a tangible gap.
We were encouraged to see that a clear-sighted new centre manager was starting to make positive changes with support of senior Home Office and Care and Custody leaders, but a shambolic retendering process meant that at the time of inspection it was unclear who would be running the centre in the next few months.
With a similarly vulnerable population and many of the same difficulties with drugs, violence and self-harm, Brook House was a more stable and well-ordered centre but continued to feel crowded and still could not provide a suitable environment for immigration detainees.
| A longstanding and fundamental problem was that all immigration detainees at Brook House, who should be held in relaxed conditions with minimal restrictions, were instead in an institution that looked and felt like a prison. Brook House |
The centre did not have enough space or experienced staff to manage an increasingly vulnerable population. We were also concerned to find a deterioration in health services that were stretched to breaking point.
Brook House leaders had made commendable and successful efforts to improve activities within the very restricted space that they had available, and there were far more jobs and an increase in physical education space and recreational activities. Welfare work also remained good and a very active Home Office Detention Engagement Team had substantially increased the level of contact with, and information given to, detainees.
Improvements at some STHFs, but others barely fit for purpose
We conducted two national short-term holding facility (STHF) inspections: the first was of 15 facilities mainly located at airports, which had held almost 16,000 people in the previous six months. The second was of the United Kingdom-run STHFs in France, where Border Force identifies people who are to be refused entry to the UK before they leave French territory.
Nearly 3,800 people had been detained in these facilities. We found some improvements in health care as a result of much better availability of paramedics, and generally good treatment by Care and Custody and Border Force staff. However, we had serious concerns about some holding rooms.
In France, we saw much improved conditions at Dunkirk and Calais and, at Calais Freight, the unacceptable practice of confining travellers in rundown vans without clear legal authority had ceased. However, some aspects of safeguarding were weak: specialist Border Force officers were not always available or sufficiently knowledgeable, and leadership oversight of use of force by Border Force staff was poor, with no evidence that either footage or paperwork for some serious incidents had been reviewed to learn lessons.
The two Coquelles sites in France provided much worse conditions for detainees in dingy, small rooms. There was very little natural light in any of the holding rooms and detainees could not go into the open air or easily sleep. Border Force teams were processing cases reasonably efficiently to minimise the length of detention, but some people, including children, had been held for over 10 hours, which was far too long for such conditions. There had not been any systematic analysis of the reasons for prolonged detentions to help drive improvement.
We had more serious concerns over the length of detention at the non-residential airport STHFs, which were designed to hold people for no more than a few hours but where over a quarter of detainees, including many children, stayed for more than 12 hours, and nearly 600 people had been detained for more than 24 hours in the previous six months. At the busiest detention facility in Luton airport, we were particularly concerned to find children placed in crowded holding rooms with unrelated adults.
| The Luton airport facility was unfit for purpose and leaders had not established a clear timeline for provision of more suitable accommodation, despite discussions with airport authorities over several years. Mitie Care and Custody STHFs |
By contrast, new facilities at Manchester Airport provided a well-designed and comfortable environment, and most of the other airport facilities we visited were in reasonable condition.
Continued improvements in escorted removals
We inspected a charter removal to Albania and two scheduled flight removals to Portugal, all of which were organised efficiently. Leaders had focused on improving staff culture and inspectors noted largely respectful and positive interactions with detainees. There was very little use of force and on one of the Portugal flights the escorting team showed skill and sensitivity in de-escalating tensions. More attention was also given to helping detainees return to their communities. However, there were some concerns: despite 50 of the 73 detainees returning to Albania wanting to return voluntarily, many of them were still detained for several weeks at considerable emotional and financial cost. Information-sharing about vulnerability was not always good enough, nor were detainees' privacy and dignity always protected.