Quakers oppose immigration removal centre expansion
The Quaker Asylum and Refugee Network (QARN) has urged the Planning Inspectorate to reject Home Office plans to reopen Haslar Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) in Gosport and expand Campsfield House IRC in Oxfordshire.
In its responses to the Planning Inspectorate consultations, QARN argued that the applications should be refused and called for a public inquiry if approval is granted.
QARN opposes all immigration detention on the basis that it is unjust and inhumane. Immigration removal centres (IRCs) operate like prisons and can cause significant harm to people's physical and mental health.
The network's submissions cited evidence from independent monitoring boards and organisations including Medical Justice, Bail for Immigration Detainees (BiD) and Amnesty International on the effects of detention.
QARN also raised concerns about the potential impact of the reopening and expansion of these IRCs on local infrastructure, the green belt, compliance with the local development plan, and local democratic decision-making.
QARN pointed to findings from the final inspection of Campsfield House before its closure in 2018. The inspection described the centre's physical conditions as cramped and deteriorating, and found that 41 per cent of people detained there reported feeling unsafe. Campsfield reopened in 2025.
According to QARN, the current expansion proposal does not address these concerns. The network noted that Mitie, which operated the centre when the shortcomings were identified, continues to hold the contract.
Concluding the Campsfield submission on behalf of QARN, Bridget Walker said:
"We are disappointed at the lack of consideration of alternatives to detention. Government-supported pilot projects on alternatives to immigration detention were found to be more cost-effective and less harmful than incarceration. The need to expand detention facilities has not been justified with evidence that it is safe for the individuals affected or that it is in the public interest.
"We are disturbed to see this application to continue and expand a system that has been shown to be seriously flawed.
"In light of these considerations, we recommend that the planning application be refused. If it is not refused, we ask for a public inquiry."