By Melodi Dogru, edited by Andrew Duffin
For those who don’t know, Campsfield House is the local immigration removal centre in Kidlington, Oxfordshire. It is operated by a private firm called Mitie, which detains people indefinitely, without any concrete time limit, not for a criminal conviction in a court of law but simple for "administrative reasons" as the Home Office processes their applications.
This is in line with the current immigration detention policy of the Labour government, which focuses on expanding detention capacity by 40%.[1] The minister responsible for immigration detention, Anna Turley, is overseeing two immigration centre expansions. One of these is Haslar Immigration Removal Centre in Hampshire and the other is our very own Campsfield House. There are many in the Party who have stood proudly against this policy, making the righteous case that human dignity cannot be sacrificed in the name of immigration enforcement. Authorities in Oxford are critical in this campaign, not only because the issue of immigration detention is very close to home but also because we are a City of Sanctuary that understands the importance of refuge. Detention should never become a punishment for seeking safety.
Whatever your personal view on this sensitive issue may be, there are certainly things that we must question. The fact that 51% of detainees brought before a bail hearing were subsequently released raises serious questions about the necessity and proportionality of immigration detention.[2]
The Coalition to Close Campsfield has been at the forefront of a determined, longstanding campaign to bring the centre’s operations to an end.[3] For campaigners at the Coalition, this is not simply a dispute over the current policy of expansion, but part of a broader concern about the treatment of people held in detention, the role of private companies in running these facilities and the limited protections available to those detained within them. In fact, Campsfield offers a local lens through which to examine a much wider issue: the human costs of Britain’s immigration detention system.
Previously, a UK Border Agency spokesman argued that “all detained persons are provided with an opportunity and encouraged to participate in activities to meet, as far as possible, their recreational and intellectual needs.”[4] However, reports from Immigration Detention Centres across the country allegedly suggest detainees have been offered work for £1 an hour, were paid in vouchers or denied payment until they were faced with imminent deportation.[5][6] If this is the case, what precisely is recreational or intellectually enriching about performing menial work for a minuscule fraction of the minimum wage, within a facility where participation takes place under conditions of detention?
The Shaw Review, back in 2016, concluded that immigration detention in the UK has a devastating impact on detainees’ mental health.[7] Stephen Shaw, a former Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, commissioned Oxford-based Professor Mary Bosworth to review the international research on detention and mental health. Reviewing factors such as the policy on the prevention of self-harm, food and fluid refusal, and safeguarding, Professor Bosworth consistently found that mental health care and safeguard needed improvement. Surely the answer cannot be to expand detention, but to reduce our reliance on it, choosing more dignified ways to process asylum?
Nevertheless, the Coalition faces a more immediate challenge in the Home Office’s plans to expand Campsfield House. The centre had reopened in December 2025 with 160 beds, but the proposed second phase would add a further 240, bringing its total capacity to 400 — an increase of 150% on its current size.[8]
The considerable scale of the proposed expansion raises the question of whether there is sufficient national for it. In June 2025, the Home Office reported that the UK had approximately 2,480 immigration detention places.[9] By the end of June 2026, 2,152 people were being held under immigration powers across detention facilities and prisons.[10] While these figures cannot establish how many places were vacant at a given time: as they refer to different dates, and include individuals held in prisons. Nevertheless, they make it essential to ask what evidence the Government has produced to demonstrate that a further 240 places at Campsfield are necessary, rather than the assumption that expanding detention capacity is the appropriate response.
Moreover, the expansion is planned as a crown development project, a special planning route in England for “nationally important” projects on Crown land.[11] What this practically means is that the Home Office can bypass the local planning authority to avoid scrutiny. However, the Coalition has been working tirelessly to campaign for a public inquiry, to stall the process and keep the Home Office accountable to the wishes of the local people in Oxfordshire.
While a public inquiry has been established, the fight is far from over: thanks to the persistent petitions and vocal objections of many. An inquiry is an important opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s plans, but it is not a guarantee that the expansion will be stopped. The Coalition’s work therefore remains vital: ensuring that local concerns are heard, that the Home Office is held accountable, and that the people affected by immigration detention are not forgotten in decisions made in their name.
For those of us who share the values of the Oxford Labour Club, this is an issue that speaks directly to the values we seek to uphold. Our commitment to social justice, workers’ rights and human dignity cannot end at the borders of our own community, nor can it be separated from the treatment of those with the least power to challenge their circumstances.
If we believe that work deserves fair pay, that public institutions should be accountable, and that everyone deserves to be treated with dignity, then we must be willing to question a system in which people are detained indeterminately. Equally, Labour’s commitment to empowering local communities must mean taking seriously the voices of those who oppose the expansion of Campsfield, rather than allowing a national policy objective to override local democratic scrutiny.
For the Coalition, this makes a visit from Anna Turley all the more important, offering her the opportunity to hear directly from the local residents, who have worked tirelessly to make their voices heard. The group hopes for and relies on the continued pressure of the people of Oxford, whether this is something as simple as writing a letter to your MP, keeping up to date through the Coalition blog[12] or joining in the demonstrations outside Campsfield House each month.
Don't forget: Campsfield is not simply a local issue; it is a test of the principles we claim to stand for.
Please note: the views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of the wider Labour club.
Image Credit: Pierre Marshall, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
[6] Department of Justice Report
[8] Campsfield Immigration Removal Centre Factsheet
[10] Government Immigration Statistics
