Skip to main contentSkip to navigationSkip to navigation
An immigration removal centre.
The Tavistock Institute review raises concerns over the relationship between the Home Office and staff working directly with detainees. Photograph: PA
The Tavistock Institute review raises concerns over the relationship between the Home Office and staff working directly with detainees. Photograph: PA

Discord between immigration bodies weighing on detainees, report says

This article is more than 9 years old

Mistrust at all levels leading to missed opportunities to improve how mental health issues are dealt with, warns Tavistock Institute

A highly critical official review into mental health issues in immigration removal centres has finally been published a year after it was delivered to the home secretary, Theresa May.

The review by the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations says the relationship between the Home Office and those advising detainees and campaigning on their behalf “has all but broken down in some instances”.

It says healthcare staff in immigration detention and removal centres report being overwhelmed and exhausted by the volume of cases and demands made on them.

The report, commissioned by the Home Office in January 2013, says “mutual antagonism and suspicion” characterises relationships between immigration officials, campaigning bodies, official watchdogs and voluntary organisations working in the field.

“Vulnerable detainees may deteriorate in a detention situation where caseworkers, subcontractors, solicitors and other agencies are often in disagreement with one another and thus feeding the detainees’ sense of powerlessness, helplessness and fear of the future.”

The Tavistock report says the mental health issues of detainees are often directly linked to uncertainty over what is happening to them in relation to possible return or removal.

But the mistrust at all levels of those involved, whether campaigning organisations or policy developers, between those advising/representing detainees and immigration caseworkers/detention staff, is leading to missed opportunities to improve how mental health issues are dealt with.

“They can also directly impact negatively on the mental health of detainees as a result of an unwillingness by those advising detainees to engage with legitimate decisions to return an individual to their country of origin and, instead, raising unrealistic expectations around the prospect of overturning that decision,” it concludes.

The Tavistock Institute recommends that mechanisms be set up to improve the Home Office’s working relationship with outside organisations to promote the mental welfare of detainees.

The Home Office said it had set up quarterly meetings with a wide range of organisations to improve relations and accepted 10 other recommendations made by the Tavistock review either fully or in part. It has been reported that it has taken 12 months to publish the report because the Home Office and the Tavistock Institute were working together to understand its findings.

The home secretary also responded to the report by announcing the establishment of a short six-month review into the wider issue of the welfare in detention of vulnerable people, including preventing self-harm and suicides. It is to be conducted by Stephen Shaw, the former prisons and probation ombudsman.

The terms of reference for the review include a commitment that ministers will publish the report by laying it before parliament as soon as reasonably practicable.

May has faced criticism in recent months for delaying critical reports from the chief inspector of immigration who has repeatedly highlighted failings in the immigration system.

The home secretary said: “Immigration detention is a vital tool in helping ensure those with no right to remain in the UK are returned to their home country. But I take the welfare of those in the government’s care very seriously and I want to ensure the health and wellbeing of all detainees, some of whom may be vulnerable, is safeguarded at all times. We must ensure it treats those we are removing from the UK with an equal sense of fairness.”

Comments (…)

Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion

Most viewed

Most viewed