Back to list

Date submitted

24 July 2026

Submitted by

Interested party

Oxford and District Trades Union Council is a delegate body of elected representatives from trade union branches, founded in 1887 and registered with the Trades Union Congress. It was the founder organisation of the Campaign to Close Campsfield, established in 1993. O&DTUC opposed the reopening of Campsfield and opposes its expansion, for the following reasons. 1 We associate ourselves with the objection on planning grounds made in the joint submission made on 21 July to this consultation by the Coalition to Close Campsfield and Right to Remain. 2 The application fails to establish a need (key to its ‘national importance’ argument) to increase the number of immigration detention places. There is no provision or analysis of statistics to support the claim. Indeed the latest government statistics on detention show that in March this year over a quarter (28%) of immigration detention places were vacant (1,705 held, capacity 2,326). We support the government-appointed Independent Monitoring Board’s National Annual Report published in June 2026 when it states: ‘Campsfield House IRC reopened in December 2025, following its closure in 2018, despite IMB concerns about the expansion of the immigration detention estate – most people are released from detention, and less costly and harmful alternatives exist.’ The ’need’ case is not established, therefore application should therefore be rejected. 3 Immigration detention is cruel and unnecessary. The 2016 ████████████ report finding that detention causes harm was accepted by the government, which instituted an Immigration Reform Programme: up to 2019 fewer people were detained, for shorter periods, alternatives to detention were successfully piloted, and four centres were closed, among them Campsfield and Haslar, both now scheduled for reopening and expansion. The need to revert to a reform programme, rather than expand detention, is laid out in the submission (17 July) to this consultation by █████████████████, who was imprisoned in Campsfield this year. It is a detailed objection and a devastating indictment of the centre: ‘I am a former detainee who was held inside Campsfield House IRC for two and a half months, from 24/03/2026 to 08/06/2026. I am exposing the severe institutional failures, negligence, and human rights abuses I witnessed and experienced first-hand, which prove this centre is unfit to operate, let alone expand.’ Racism and abuse are rife in detention centres. Mitie, which runs Campsfield, has been forced to launch an investigation into allegations of racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia and hate speech among staff working in immigration removal centres. The application should therefore be rejected. 4 Immigration detention is also unjust in that decisions to detain are arbitrary and administrative, are conducted without judicial oversight, and detention is without time limit. 5 Among national organisations objecting to the expansion of Campsfield is the UK office of Amnesty International (13 July). It cannot be the case that humanitarian concerns are irrelevant to the matter at issue: whether or not to increase immigration detention and all the problems it brings. 6 A series of pilots for community-based alternatives to detention was initiated by the government as part of the above mentioned Immigration Detention Reform Programme. Only two of the planned four pilots sponsored by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees were run. Independent reviews of the two that were run were favourable. No expansion of immigration detention should be undertaken without completion of the planned pilots. The application should therefore be rejected. 7 Key material is redacted in the application papers, including a transport assessment. It is therefore not possible to make a judgement about the impact on local roads and the application should therefore be rejected. The same goes for the lack/redaction of internal floor plans. The likely internal regime, including the safety and welfare of people detained cannot be assessed. Therefore the application should be rejected. The internal arrangements, floor plans and centre managing regime were a key concern detailed in the letters of ████████████████ MP to the Home Secretary and to the Cherwell Planning Department, following which a previous plan to expand Campsfield was withdrawn. In the absence of documents such as these, necessary to assess an application, the application should be rejected. 8 Oxford and District Trades Union Council has long campaigned against the use of what we call slave labour in immigration detention centres. Many detainees want to work, to occupy their time and get some money, especially if they are destitute. They are paid about £1 per hour. Mitie and other private companies subcontracted by the government to run detention centres are making a huge saving by not employing people from outside detention on the minimum wage to carry out tasks. If detainees work they should be paid properly, at least the Minimum Wage. Jobs previously advertised for detainees have included: ‘Cleaners, Kitchen Orderly, Cook, Dining Room Orderly, Painter, Litter Picker, Assistants (Fitness Suite, Library etc.), Block Orderly (Blue, Yellow and SSU), Buddy, Recycling Orderly, Campsfield Magazine, Gardener’ (Campsfield IMB report 2011). The number of people subjected to this practice, which is enslavement of vulnerable people, should not be increased and therefore the application should be rejected. Slave Labour at Campsfield – statement by Oxford & District Trades Union Council, July 2008 “Oxford & District Trades Union Council deplores the fact that GEO (formerly Wackenhut), which runs Campsfield detention centre under contract from the Home Office, is paying immigration detainees £5 [a day] for doing jobs in the centre. It understands that these may be in the kitchen and cleaning. We believe that giving detainees ‘jobs’ for which they do not even receive the minimum wage and receive inadequate training and supervision is wrong. It is bad for the detainees, who are in a vulnerable position in detention and are being superexploited. It may be bad for the standards of care and cleanliness in the centre. We are concerned that staffing levels have been cut at the centre. We maintain our position that Campsfield is a shameful operation and should be closed. As long as it is open, jobs should be properly paid and be done by trained staff. For detainees there should be adequate recreational, educational and other provision, which we understand has been cut since GEO took over the centre. Detainees should receive an adequate financial allowance and not be obliged to act as slave labour for a multinational that makes big profits out of an operation that causes detainees enormous stress, uncertainty, general misery and often mental illness.” 9 The proposal is not ‘value for money’, an assertion it makes. Two years ago the government estimated that the cost of running Campsfield and Haslar for six years would be £400,000. This excludes all the costs involved in planning and running an expanded Campsfield. It is clear that these would be much more than £400,000, and are likely to be over £1 billion. Much of this would go to shareholders of Mitie and others, which is clearly not best use of public money. Most people held in detention are eventually freed to live in the community in rented accommodation, which is a lot cheaper: Private-rented dispersal accommodation £23.25 Immigration detention £143.47 Expansion of detention is clearly not ‘value for money’ and the application should therefore be rejected. 10 We protest at the use of the Crown Development Order route and demand that it is not used in future for proposed new immigration detention centres or the expansion of existing ones, or for accommodation centre for asylum seekers. 11 If the application is not rejected, we call for a Public Inquiry. 12 We wish to attend such an Inquiry. █████████████ On Behalf of O&DTUC 24.7.26 ENDS