The Government’s chief inspector of prisons recently published his findings from the unannounced inspection of Derwentside IRC. We are keen to echo the views of our member No to Hassockfield on this report:

The report says:

“ 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 our campaign has always maintained, that many of detainees were being held unnecessarily. It is also unclear how any of the 41% of women moved to other centres were actually released on bail as well.

No to Hassockfield has always said that imprisoning women in Derwentside is cruel, isolating and unnecessary, this offical report confirms what we have been saying.

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. LESS THAN 1 IN 5!

This number highlights how remote the site is and the distance the women are from their homes. We know that the family and friends of the women do not have lots of money and therefore the ability to travel to Derwentside. This further isolates the women and increases the deterioration in their personal, physical and mental health.

Whilst the HMIP report does say that living conditions at the site were “very good”, staff were “dedicated”, it highlights major concerns:

Priority 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 we usually 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.