Yarl’s Wood. Brook House detainees were more critical of the custodial staff too, reporting that they were less honest and fair and treated them with less respect than similar measures by IRC Yarl’s Wood detainees. Brook House detainees felt they understood less what was being communicated to them by staff, and found it harder to make themselves understood than those in Yarl’s Wood and Tinsley House. In all three centres, those detainees who reported health problems also perceived immigration and IRC staff to be less helpful and sincere than those detainees who were healthy. They trusted immigration and custodial staff less, and felt more isolated than their healthy peers. Those who had family in the UK felt they could understand what was being communicated to them by staff, and found it easier to make themselves understood. Those who had stayed longer in detention felt treated less humanely, believed custodial staff members were less honest and fair, thought the centre did not care for the vulnerable, and were most critical about healthcare in detention. There were also some differences among specific groups of detainees. Those who had applied for asylum, for instance, were in general more negative about most aspects of detention. This population was more distressed and depressed, felt treated less humanely, trusted immigration less, felt and believed that immigration officers neither listened to them nor explained their case to them. This group also felt that they did not understand what was happening in their immigration case nor that could they make progress in it. Former prisoners had more negative perceptions about levels of communication. Specifically, compared to those who had not served a prison term, exprisoners were more likely to report that the induction process was not as good at explaining what to expect each day. They also could not understand what staff were telling them or could not communicate what they wanted to staff. The longer the prison sentence they had served, the less ex-prisoners felt that induction was good and the less they felt they were understood by officers or were able to communicate with them. The authors found during their qualitative work that ex-prisoners continually compared prisons with immigration removal centres. Their views on the induction process may in this case have reflected their comparison of it with the prison induction process. Similarly, their views on communication with staff may have been relative to their experience of communicating with prison officers. This issue needs to be investigated further. When participants were asked to report negative aspects of detention their responses focused on the justification of detention itself and the emotional impact of being confined awaiting removal/deportation. More prosaically, many also commented negatively on the food. Positive aspects of life in detention included relationship with other detainees, officers or healthcare staff, and the opportunity to practice and/or reaffirm their religious beliefs. Since one centre is primarily for women and two are for men, when comparing IRC Yarl’s Wood10 to Tinsley House and Brook House it is not possible to conclude which of the differences in perception is due to gender or which is a result of different regimes or practices in the IRCs. In order to tease out gender differences it might be worth interviewing the small numbers of women held in those centres (eg Colnbrook and Dungavel) which hold both women and men. When participants were asked to report negative aspects of detention their responses focused on the justification of detention itself and the emotional impact of being confined awaiting removal/deportation. 10. Discussion Some of these findings are likely to be disheartening for centre managers and staff as well as for those working in UKBA, many of whom are actively striving to improve conditions in detention and detainee quality of life. They are also likely to be familiar. The question that needs addressing then, is why are these issues so hard to resolve and what, if anything might the MQLD contribute to understanding them better? It is clear that most people in detention do not wish to be confined. Though some spoke positively about friendships they had forged with other detainees or skills they had learned in art and craft, nobody would choose to be detained. Likewise, though some acknowledged that, given their lack of immigration status, detention was a known risk, or that they were When we conducted our research in IRC Yarl’s Wood it held family groups with minor and adult children, so there were some men in the institution. As our research came to an end in December 2010 it stopped housing children under the age of 18 though continued to hold married couples and couples with adult children. In March 2012 it opened a small unit for single men as well. Issue 205 Prison Service Journal 13