Staff had no training in use of force techniques. They did not use handcuffs. There had been three escapes in 2016. One detainee was caught and returned to the centre. We were told that no disciplinary action was taken as punishments were not allowed. The centre had a special isolation room for those who were considered hard to control (see appendix one). It was about 1.5m x 4m and had padded walls and a toilet. There was also a small window at the top. Detainees were kept in the room for an initial maximum of one hour but could be held for up to four hours if it was necessary to separate them for a second time. The director said that children were not held in the isolation room. Staff could not tell the NPM how many and for how long people had been held in the room. There was a register, which was requested by the NPM. Vulnerable families who were at risk from others were held on the same landing as the isolation room. We saw two families there who were thought to have links with the terrorist organisations and were considered to be at risk from other detainees. The NPM did not speak to these families. The families could go outside, but separately from the others. There was a small television but just one chair in the viewing room (see pictures). Children and families There were 12 families and 35 children in the unit. There were no unaccompanied minors. There were two pregnant women and one of them was pregnant for a second time having already given birth to a child in detention. The family unit was a very restrictive environment for children and we saw them running up and down the narrow corridors to occupy themselves or looking out of windows (see appendix one). There was very little stimulation for children. The director said that children could go outside when they wanted to with their parents, social workers or psychologists. However, when the NPM spoke to the families, almost all the parents said that children never went outside. It soon became evident that they did not consider the enclosed yard with high walls as ‘outside’. The yard itself was dirty and strewn with empty bottles and a few fixed chairs, some of them broken. There was a children’s activity area, which was dirty and unwelcoming. The whole effect was of a desolate and depressing area (see appendix one). There was a kindergarten but children could attend only for five hours every other day. The psychologist said children who attended the kindergarten displayed a number of behavioural concerns, despite efforts to support them. Several detainees told us that the children had lost their appetites, were bored and fought with each other, and that in turn this caused arguments between parents. Children aged three to seven could also use a playroom. One very upset man spoke at length about his situation. He had three young children and was raising them alone. He said the centre did not provide vitamins for the children, the food was poor and the doctor hard to see. His family was stressed every day because of the possibility of removal. He said children were not allowed outside at all, only into the play area. He said there were no toys for his children. His youngest son was playing nearby with a plastic plug socket cover; he said that his child had become very attached to this object and played with it all the time as there were no toys to give him. If anyone tried to take it away from him, he became very upset. He said the children became bored and fights often broke out between them. He said their bedroom was very hot in summer, especially when the door was locked overnight. The father was upset throughout this discussion and said ‘our children are devastated here’. 13