Recommendation 15: New comprehensive use of force detention services order
From The Brook House Inquiry Report, published 19 September 2023.
Recommendation
The Home Office must introduce, as a matter of urgency, a new and comprehensive detention services order to address use of force in immigration removal centres. The detention services order must include the following issues: the permissible justifications for the use of force within immigration removal centres, based on the key principle that force must not be used unnecessarily and must be used only as a last resort; the use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), including that it must be subject to a dynamic risk assessment before and during any use of force incident; the protection of dignity when force is used on a naked or near-naked detained person; the circumstances in which force can be used against a detained person with mental ill health; and monitoring, oversight and reporting of use of force by contractors and by the Home Office. The Home Office must ensure that training about the application of the new detention services order and use of force techniques takes place on a regular (at least annual) basis for all detention staff as well as healthcare staff. Attendance must be mandatory for all staff working in immigration removal centres and those responsible for managing them. The training must be subject to an assessment. In anticipation of a new detention services order on the use of force in immigration detention, the Home Office must issue an immediate instruction to its contractors managing immigration removal centres that force must be used only as a last resort, using approved techniques.
In brief (written by this site)
The Inquiry asked the Home Office to publish a new detention order on the use of force. In a letter of May 2025 quoted in a court judgment, Dame Angela Eagle, Minister for Border Security and Asylum, stated that a new detention services order addressing mental health considerations was being developed for immigration detention, though named elements including protective equipment risk assessments and mandatory training were not mentioned (Dame Angela Eagle, May 2025). The Independent Monitoring Board at Gatwick Immigration Removal Centres reported in September 2026 that the resulting order was published in December 2025 (Independent Monitoring Boards, Sep 2026).
AI-generated summary of the record on this page, checked by a second model and automatic checks, 5 Oct 2026. The record below is the sources' own words.
Government response
30 out of the 33 recommendations made by the Brook House Inquiry have been accepted or partially accepted.
How this response relates to the recommendation
Site note: The written answer gives this sentence once, for 30 of the 33 recommendations together: every recommendation except 7, 19 and 30, which it says were rejected. It does not say which of the 30 were accepted in full and which in part, so the site records "Accepted, fully or in part (not specified)". The same words are recorded on recommendations 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32 and 33. Recommendations 1, 2 and 3 are among the 30 but are not given this row, because the Minister's letter of 22 May 2025 states a position on each of them.
Earlier statement from Home Office (1)
6.6.3. The Home Office has been working closely with HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS), NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) to ensure expert input into consideration of these recommendations. The use of force is an unfortunate but necessary tool to maintain the safety and security of both those detained and staff, but we note the report findings into the use of dangerous techniques. The Home Office has communicated to all IRC and contracted service provider staff that techniques involving hand cuffing behind backs whilst seated is not permitted. A new DSO in relation to use of force is being developed in consultation with experts, and training around use of force reviews is under development. This will go hand in hand with an overhaul of existing assurance processes, including the introduction of an escalation system to better facilitate the communication of concerns.
How this response relates to the recommendation
Site note: CP 1041 is organised by ten key issues, not by recommendation, and states no position on any individual recommendation. Its only general statement of acceptance is that "The government has carefully considered and accepts the broad thrust of the recommendations". The words "in principle" do not appear anywhere in the document.
Delivery
Home Office says in progress (22 May 2025)
A new DSO in relation to use of force is being developed specifically for the immigration detention estate. The DSO will include key considerations on mental health of detained individual’s prior to and during the application of force. There will be engagement with non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and key stakeholders during the development of the DSO.
From: R (D1914 and AAA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (AVY) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Dame Angela Eagle, Minister for Border Security and Asylum
Site note: These are the words of the letter of 22 May 2025 from the Minister for Border Security and Asylum to Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP, as reproduced in the judgment in R (D1914 and AVY) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 1853 (Admin). The letter itself is not published: it is on GOV.UK nowhere, was not deposited in Parliament and is not annexed to the judgment, so the judgment is the record that carries it and is the source this row cites. The judgment quotes it on this recommendation at paragraph 191.
Earlier statement on delivery (1)
Home Office (15 January 2025)
the remaining 13 (recommendations 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 31, 32 and 33) on track for closure by summer 2025
Site note: One written answer of 15 January 2025 addresses all 33 recommendations in groups: it names each recommendation in one of four groups and says nothing further about any of them individually. It does not say which of the 30 it describes as "accepted or partially accepted" were accepted in full and which in part.
Site note: The source gives this passage once, for the 13 remaining accepted recommendations. The same words are recorded on recommendations 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 31, 32 and 33.
What other bodies have found
In their own words. These do not change the delivery statement above.
Independent Monitoring Board (1 September 2026)
The Brook House Inquiry recommended a definition of use of force tailored to the immigration detention setting rather than borrowing from prisons. It was only in December 2025 that the resultant Detention Service Order was published.
Site note: The Independent Monitoring Board at Gatwick immigration removal centres, in its annual report for 2025. The report gives only the month it was published, September 2026, so the row is dated 1 September 2026; the Board's news item is dated 2 September 2026. The Home Office's detention services order on use of force ("Use of force for adults in detention") is shown on GOV.UK as first published on 21 November 2025. The Board is not the addressee of this recommendation, so the row is marked noted.
Earlier findings (1)
Independent Monitoring Board (1 December 2025)
The Board confirmed last year that we welcomed the recommendation of the Brook House Inquiry for a definition of use of force tailored to the immigration setting rather than borrowing from prisons. Such a definition has not yet emerged.
Site note: The Independent Monitoring Board at Gatwick immigration removal centres (Brook House and Tinsley House), in its annual report for 2024. The report gives only the month it was published, December 2025, so the row is dated 1 December 2025; the Board's news item announcing it is dated 4 December 2025. The Board monitors the centres and is not the addressee of this recommendation, so its words set no status and the row is marked noted.
Published evidence
Published findings referenced by inspectorates, select committees, official progress reports, and other sources. Source type badge indicates whether the finding is independent or government self-reported. Each finding is this site's summary of what the source found, with a link to the source; this site does not add its own progress rating.
Summary by this site of the published finding
3.24 Levels of violence were still high but had stabilised and, in some areas, slightly reduced. Force was used less often and there had been no group protests in the 11 months since the full inspection, compared to four in the first seven months of 2024.
View detailed findings
3.24 Levels of violence were still high but had stabilised and, in some areas, slightly reduced. Force was used less often and there had been no group protests in the 11 months since the full inspection, compared to four in the first seven months of 2024.
Responsible bodies
Themes and tags
Who has spoken
- Home Office
Response, delivery statement - Independent Monitoring Board
Finding