The report of the inquiry into the riot and fire at the Yarl’s Wood immigration centre in 2002 was published last year. Here Martin Shipp of BRE, who gave evidence to the inquiry, summarises the fire safety aspects of the findings.
The disturbance and fire at Yarl’s Wood on the night of the 14/15 February 2002 resulted in wide media coverage, some of which criticised the decision not to fit sprinklers at the centre. Stephen Shaw’s report looked at the many facets of the disturbance including the handling of the initial incident, which is said to have triggered the event. The report also looked at the construction of the centre and the reasons behind the lack of an automatic sprinkler system.
Yarl’s Wood was intended to house 900 immigration detainees. It was not a prison, but an accommodation centre for failed asylum seekers as well as illegal immigrants, some of whom were women and children. It was meant to provide a safe environment while claims were being considered. The unit opened on 19 November 2001 and consisted of two self-contained, two-storey units divided by a 5.6 metre fence. The units contained sleeping accommodation, catering, healthcare, as well as recreational, religious and educational facilities.
The disturbance is said to have been triggered by an altercation between a female detainee and staff who had to restrain her. This incident was witnessed by some male detainees who believed excessive force was being applied. A riot ensued, hostages were taken and various fires were set. Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue, the attending fire service, estimated that at least four and possibly six fires were caused by deliberate ignition.
At midnight the roof caught fire, so the fire crews evacuated and fought the fire defensively, as there was a risk that the building would collapse. The fires were eventually extinguished during the morning of 15 February.
Stephen Shaw’s report raised concerns about fire safety management at the centre, and a number of statements suggested that maintenance was poor. On the night of the disturbance there was evidence of:
– Incorrect fire signage. Some doors were marked as exits that were not intended as such.
– Magnetically operated fire doors not opening
– Defects in the fire alarm system, which failed to operate properly in the lead up to the fire
– Problems with many fire doors
– Some key operated exits remained locked during the fire.
Statistics show that sprinklers extinguish or control between 98% and 99% of fires that break out in sprinklered premises, 82% by four sprinkler heads or less. So why were sprinklers not installed at Yarl’s Wood? Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue’s policy is (and was at the time) to encourage the installation of domestic, life safety and commercial sprinklers. They had raised concerns about the remote location of the centre, the fact that there was only one access road and that there was poor water pressure at the centre. They also raised concerns about the inherent weaknesses in the construction method and materials used.
However, the Home Office and the Prison Service turned down the advice to fit sprinklers, not only from Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue but also HM Fire Service Inspectorate. They argued that there was no sprinkler system in the generic design, and that there had been no major fires in prisons or similar establishments. There was also concern that if sprinklers were to be fitted at Yarl’s Wood then this would lead to sprinkler systems being fitted in all similar establishments, including prisons. Some media coverage cynically suggested that the decision not to fit sprinklers was directly related to the estimate of GB pound 2.5m for the installation. Also, back in 2001, Mr Hewitt, the then Home Office advisor on fire, and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority had advised that there was no need for a life safety sprinkler system to be fitted at the Harmonsworth Centre, a similar accommodation centre. The conclusions of the report can be summarised as follows:
– Contrary to rumour, nobody lost their life during the Yarl’s Wood disturbance.
– When Yarl’s Wood was commissioned it was by far the largest institution for which the Immigration Service (IS) was responsible – it was simply too large and the IS had no experience of running an establishment of this size.
– There was pressure from the government and the public to quickly build a detention centre to house some 30,000+ failed asylum seekers and this led to planning being fast-tracked.
– A combination of design and materials led to a building which was not fit for purpose.
– Regarding the decision not to fit sprinklers, insufficient attention was paid to Yarl’s Wood’s location, poor water supplies, its construction and the nature of the occupants.
The report also sets out some 79 recommendations, those relating to fire are as follows:
– Group 4 Falck Global Solutions UK Ltd (GSL) reviews its fire contingency plans
– GSL reviews fire signage and carries out maintenance checks to ensure all fire safety measures are complied with
– IND (Immigration & Nationality Directorate) assesses construction materials for their suitability for a project
– The case for sprinklers to be judged on individual merits.
The Report of the Inquiry headed by Stephen Shaw, CBE, Prisons and Probation Ombudsman is available on the Home Office Immigration and Nationality Directorate website at www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk.
