This week, on 6th January, the chief inspector of prisons published his report on Derwentside IRC.
Several of the findings have vindicated our years-long call on the Labour Government and our local MPs to remember the humanity of the women locked inside and to close the centre.
In September Charlie Taylor, the government’s chief inspector of prisons, sent his team to make an unannounced inspection of Derwentside IRC.
The report – the first since 2022 – confirms many of the issues the No to Hassockfield campaign has highlighted as reasons to close the site.
Click here to read the report in full
Major findings in the report:
Unjust imprisonment
“Of the 723 women who left Derwentside Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) in Consett, County Durham, during a six-month period in 2025, 59% had been let go and 41% sent to other centres.”
This means a majority of women should never have been detained, proving what the campaign has always said, that many detainees were being held unnecessarily. It is also unclear how many of the 41% of women moved to other centres were actually released on bail as well.
Isolation
No to Hassockfield has always said that imprisoning women in Derwentside is cruel, isolating and unnecessary – this official report confirms our position.
The report also said that only 17% of the women it surveyed had been visited by friends or family while being held at Derwentside IRC. THEREFORE, LESS THAN 1 IN 5 women who will have had visits from family and friends
This number highlights the remoteness of the site and the distance the women are from their homes. At weekly protests campaigners meet family and friends of the women who have often travelled hundreds of miles to visit the centre. They are amongst the few who have the money and the ability to travel to Derwentside IRC. This isolation increases the deterioration in the women’s personal, physical and mental health.
The report touches on the IRC’s inadequate telecoms provision, but does not acknowledge how important it is for people in indefinite detention to be able to contact the outside world. Although access to legal advice has improved somewhat since the IRC opened, the impossibility of getting adequate mobile and internet signals on the site should have been picked up before a decision was ever made to site a centre here.
Priority concerns listed in the report:
Whilst the HMIP report does say that living conditions at the site were “very good”, and that the staff were “dedicated”, it highlights major concerns:
1. There were not enough female detention staff to cover duties where detainees needed supervision and support from a woman. Such duties included overnight first night in custody checks on sleeping women, and support for women at risk of self-harm who had previously experienced male violence.
Key concerns
2. Many detainees were still being transported overnight and had long journeys to the centre. This had included pregnant women and those at risk of self-harm.
3. In a number of cases, the Home Office had not identified, explored, or taken sufficient account of vulnerability in making its initial decision to detain. These cases included women with serious mental illness, those who had experienced gender-related violence and some who had informed officials that they were pregnant. The quality of Rule 35 reports, which provided a safeguard once women were detained, was also worse than the HMIP expect to see.
4. Too much of the food on offer was bland and unappetising, and portion sizes varied significantly.
5. Complaint responses took too long and were not translated. This meant that too many detainees either did not receive or understand the complaint response.
6. There was a lack of systematic identification and support for women with disabilities or neurodivergent conditions, and for younger and older women.
7. There was not enough focus on the importance of family contact for detainees. Women’s ability to contact their children and other members of their family was hindered by poor phone signal and delays in access to social video calls.
8. Release planning for some vulnerable individuals did not sufficiently address specific risks and vulnerabilities alongside practical concerns
Dr. Helen Groom, chairperson of No To Hassockfield said:“The figures contained in this report prove many women are being held unnecessarily, as a majority are released on bail. It’s also not clear how many of those moved to other centres also ended up remaining in the UK.The government’s own inspectorate report shows that Derwentside is not an immigration removal centre, it’s an expensive prison for the women locked inside, without a timescale and it’s deeply traumatising.As our campaign has said since before it opened, Derwentside IRC is cruel, unnecessary and isolating. We ask people to consider how they would feel if they were unable to visit their mother, daughter, sister, friend when they are locked up hundreds of miles away. This centre needs to close.”
New to our campaign? Here’s a Timeline of Derwentside IRC
In early 2021, it emerged that the Home Office planned to open a new detention centre with capacity to detain 84 women at Hassockfield (renamed Derwentside IRC by the Home Office), in County Durham [1]. Local people and campaigners united to resist the plans, including one local resident who mounted a legal challenge against the Home Office and local council.
In December 2022, HM Inspectorate of Prisons released their first inspection report on Derwentside [2]. The report highlighted many extremely concerning findings, including a ‘use of force’ incident, and the ‘constant supervision’ of women by male staff – despite Home Office guidance prohibiting this practice [3].
In its 2022 and 2023 reports Derwentside IRC Independent Monitoring Board called for the government to consider closing the centre, stating “In the light of the issues and inequalities we have highlighted in this report, to reconsider the suitability of Derwentside as an IRC.”
Notes
Leave a Reply
Your email is safe with us.
You must be logged in to post a comment.