1. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) Inspecting Immigration Detention 31st March 2015
Introductions.
Roles at HMIP.
Bev Alden - Inspector 1

2. Role of HMIP
To ensure independent inspection of detention to report on conditions and treatment, and promote positive outcomes for those detained and the public
Established by Prison Act 1952 – powers are in law which means they cannot be challenged.
The most important thing about HMIP is that we are independent - independent of the prison authorities and of the government
Funding provided by Ministry of Justice, but there should be no interference by Ministry in how that budget is spent. There is no interference in how prisons are inspected or in the content of reports.
Chief Inspector is appointed from outside the Prison Service, recruited through open and fair competition, nomination is approved by a cross-party committee in Parliament. He is appointed by the Queen
Role is to report on the treatment of prisoners and the conditions in prisons 2 2

3. History
HMIP established in 1982 by an amendment to the 1952 Prison Act
1999 Immigration Act gave HMIP the power to inspect IRCs and those under escort.
The UK ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture in 2003 and in March 2009 the UK’s national preventative mechanism was designated.
HMIP can visit anywhere people are deprived of their liberty
We now ‘make recommendations to … prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.’

4. The UK National Preventive Mechanism (NPM)
The NPM is made up of 20 existing bodies with powers to inspect and monitor places of
detention.
Members cover all four nations in the UK.
Includes lay bodies and professional bodies
In order to monitor detention and prevent torture, the NPM must be able to:
Access all places of detention
Speak to detainees and others in private
Choose which places to visit and which people to talk to
Access information on places of detention, and on detainees and their treatment and conditions

5. UK NPM members and their jurisdictions
England and Wales
HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP)
Independent Monitoring Boards (IMB)
Independent Custody Visiting Association (ICVA)
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC)
Lay Observers (LO)
England
Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England (OCC)
Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted)
Care Quality Commission (CQC)
Wales
Healthcare Inspectorate Wales (HIW)
Care and Social Services Inspectorate Wales (CSSIW)
Scotland
HM Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland (HMIPS)
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland (HMICS)
Scottish Human Rights Commission (SHRC)
Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland (MWCS)
Care Inspectorate (CI)
Independent Custody Visitors Scotland (ICVS)
Northern Ireland
Independent Monitoring Boards (Northern Ireland) (IMBNI)
Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI)
Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA)
Northern Ireland Policing Board Independent Custody Visiting Scheme (NIPBICVS)

6. What institutions do HMIP inspect?
Prisons (adult, young adult, juvenile)
Police custody
Immigration detention
Military detention
Court custody
Customs custody facilities
Secure training centres for children

7. Inspection Standards
HMIP inspects against its own set of published standards called ‘Expectations’
Outcomes referenced against international human rights standards and penal norms
Separate Expectations for:
Male prisoners
Female Prisoners
Children and young people
Immigration detention
Police custody
Court custody
Armed forces
HMIP sets own standards for inspection – independent of those of the prison service.
- These are known as Expectations
- They are in the public domain, so accessible to the Prison service, other detention authorities and the public
This ensures transparency and demonstrates our independence.
For each type of detention inspected we have a different set of expectations
Expectations focus specifically on outcomes for prisoners.
- They referenced against international human rights standards
- and they have less focus on management or processes except insofar as they deliver those outcomes
The underlying principle of our inspection criteria is the concept of a healthy prison.
- idea originated from some work the World Heath Organisation did in the late 1990s.
We have Four tests to assess the health of a prison and outcomes for prisoners :
The first is safety where all prisoners, even the most vulnerable, are held safely.
Secondly, respect - prisoners are treated with respect for their human dignity
Purposeful activity, meaning that prisoners are able, and expected, to engage in activity that is likely to benefit them both in prison and on release.
Finally, resettlement - Prisoners are prepared for their release back into the community and effectively helped to reduce the likelihood of reoffending.
[NEXT SLIDE] 7

8. Inspection methods Independent and impartial Unannounced inspections
Unfettered access, with ability to arrive unannounced, go anywhere and talk to anyone.
Inspectors draw keys.
Listen to detainees, focus on detainees voice
Unfettered right to publish
Outcome focused
Report published 16 weeks later
Independence is the most important thing
Very much a human rights based organisation
Talk to detainees in private
Legal status – helps with independent and ensures right to access prisons cannot be challenged
Media status – the Inspectorate is a well regarded and trusted source of information on what is happening inside prisons. Its findings are accurate, trusted and well-regarded. The public and media know HMIP is independent so this increases trust 8

9. Healthy establishment tests
Safety
Respect
Purposeful activity
Preparation for removal and release
Detainees are held in safety and with due regard to the insecurity of their position
Detainees are treated with respect for their human dignity and the circumstances of their detention.
The centre encourages activities and provides facilities to preserve and promote the mental and physical wellbeing of detainees.
Detainees are able to make contact with family, friends, support groups, legal representatives and advisers, access information about their country of origin and be prepared for their release, transfer or removal. Detainees are able to retain or recover their property.

10. Evidence Random but representative sample Triangulation Observation
Group discussion with detainees
Individual interviews
Interviews with staff
Examination of documentation
Casework analysis
Detainee Survey:
Outcome focussed
Confidential
Random but representative sample
Results can be compared with other similar prisons, results from last inspection
Just before I get in to the prisoner survey, I’ll give you a quick overview of inspection methodology and how judgements are made about establishments.
We use both qualitative and quantitative methodologies to gather evidence, drawing on a range of sources:
- prisoner survey is just one source
- inspectors also make observations, review documentation, and talk to people, both formally and informally
Inspections usually take place during a one-two week period.
- evidence is reviewed and discussed informally on a daily basis by the team,
- emerging findings checked and further explored
towards the end of the inspection a more formal meeting takes place to assess against the 4 healthy prison tests
Data from different sources triangulated, so we never use one evidence source alone, evidence is always obtained from three different sources. For example, inspectors may use our detainee survey and documentary analysis and then combine these with information gleaned from interviews with staff or detainees. This method provides a robust and rigorous inspection methodology and allows inspectors to test the validity of their findings and its impact on the wider prison population.
A judgement is made about outcomes in each of the four Healthy Prison areas (i.e. safety, respect, purposeful activity, resettlement). The scores can range from 1 (poor outcomes) to 4 (good outcomes) for each.

11. Immigration removal centres in UK
Four public sector
Seven private
Eight centres exclusively male
Three mixture of male and female
1 pre-departure accommodation
Families with children
34 Short-term holding facilities (STHFs)
Three residential, 29 non-residential
Three facilities in France
About 3000 immigration detainees
Further 400 held in prisons

12. Overseas escorts
HMIP has inspected overseas enforced removals, including flights, since 2010 following the death of an Angolan detainee during deportation
Observe detainees being collected from the IRC through to handover in the destination country
Analysis of incident reports and use of force information for the previous three flights to that same country.
Published standards/criteria for these inspections, freely available on the HMIP website.
Service improvement plans from the Home Office within two months of reports being published.

13. Key findings
Detainees were transported and arriving at centres too late at night, and some were subject to excessive moves around the estate
IRCs were safe with few fights and assaults, and use of force was low.
Some IRCs looked and felt like a prison
Some security procedures were disproportionate.
Welfare services were provided at IRCs but some required development, and not all detainees were adequately prepared for removal or release.
Detainees were not permitted access to Skype or social networks to maintain contact with family and friends.

14. Many detainees had no access to a lawyer to help their case.
The quality of Rule 35 reports was variable and did not all lead to release
There were some cases of prolonged detention with no clear justification.
The quality of STHFs varied, and some people were detained there too long, but detainees generally felt safe.
Overseas escorts were generally efficient, but we had concerns about some staff conduct and disproportionate security measures.

15. Positive outcomes
General improvement in treatment and conditions, especially in STHFs.
Examples of policy influence:
Force on children or pregnant women to effect removal
Internet access
Mobile phones
HMIP consulted on all new detention service orders.
Chief inspector meets with ministers and operational head of Immigration Enforcement

16. Rule 35 Detention Centre Rules
Healthcare staff should make a report to the Home Office where they consider a detainee’s health will likely be affected by detention, or if they might have suicidal intentions, or may have been a victim of torture.
Some improvement in the rule 35 safeguard, but in many cases it is still ineffective.
Healthcare professionals require training
Quality of rule 35 reports varies significantly
Not all responses by immigration caseworkers to reports are sufficiently timely
Many reports do not lead to release from detention, although some do e.g. Dover IRC, five of the last 16 reports had led to the release of the detainee, a much higher proportion than we usually see.

17. Victims of Trafficking
The National Referral Mechanism
Council of Europe Convention on Action against Human Trafficking 2008
A process for identifying and supporting victims of trafficking
Multi agency
First responders make referrals into the mechanism
Competent authorities - UK Human Trafficking Centre and Home Office
Two stage decision making process, no detention within this period.
Victims may be granted leave to remain, dependent on circumstances
Awareness of the mechanism is variable.

18. Children and Families
The Cedars pre departure accommodation for families:
Time limited detention
42 families were held at the centre during 2013 for an average of just over three days, some on more than one occasion.
Families were held at the centre safely.
Barnardo’s staff play an important role in the centre
A well managed establishment, but the distress of families passing through the centre and its potential impact on the children involved is disturbing.
Force no longer used against pregnant women and children unless it is to prevent harm.
The Cedars centre remains an example of best practice in caring for families who are to be removed.

19. The National Independent Commission on Enforced Removals
2012 report made four main recommendations:
The need for a multi-disciplinary panel for complex returns
The need for a more robust system for regular and appropriate licensing of contracted detainee custody officers (DCOs) and escort staff
The need for independent oversight of the enforced removal process
The need for pain-free restraint techniques appropriate for use during enforced removals.

20. Alternatives to detention
Currently in the UK
The requirement to report
Electronic monitoring
Immigration bail – but this is a mechanism for release
The APPG Inquiry into the Use of Immigration Detention in the United Kingdom (2014):
‘There needs to be a shift…away from a reliance on end-stage enforcement and towards engagement and compliance’
Time limited detention
Community based resolutions
Detention to be used sparingly
Introduce a wider range of alternatives to detention

21.
Website: