Day 35 · Proposal 34 · Part XV · Policy 37
34
Rapidly Expand Detention Capacity
Secure capacity. Strict safeguards. Government control.
Open for scrutiny — Manifesto 1.1
Proposal 34 would rapidly expand secure immigration detention capacity through tightly regulated government contracts. Private providers could help build and operate facilities, but asylum decisions and lawful removals would remain entirely under government control. Contracts must protect security, welfare, value for money and public accountability.
Published Manifesto 1.1 policy. The sections below set out the proposal as published. Questions and challenges are open questions, not settled answers.
1. The core idea
Manifesto 1.1 proposes expanding secure immigration detention capacity quickly enough to support a functioning asylum and removals system.
Government may contract appropriately regulated private security and infrastructure providers to construct and operate facilities. Responsibility for every decision that matters would remain with government.
Core commitment
Secure capacity. Strict safeguards. Government control.
2. Government decides. Contractors deliver.
The government must retain complete responsibility for asylum decisions, legal outcomes and decisions about removal.
Clear line of responsibility
Contractors must never decide who receives protection or who is removed.
Private providers could help build and run facilities under contract. They would have no role in determining claims, legal outcomes or removals.
3. Firm contract standards
- Security: Safe, secure facilities with clear operating rules and incident reporting.
- Accommodation: Decent, safe and suitable living conditions.
- Healthcare: Timely access to physical and mental healthcare.
- Safeguarding: Protection for vulnerable people, with clear escalation and review.
- Legal access: Timely access to legal advice and representation.
- Independent inspection: Regular, unannounced and published independent inspection.
- Transparency: Published performance, incident, spending and outcome data.
- Humane treatment: Dignity and humane treatment as enforceable contract terms.
4. Detention must be lawful and limited
Detention should be lawful, necessary, proportionate, reviewable and used for the shortest appropriate period.
Additional capacity supports a functioning system; it is not a reason to detain more people or for longer than necessary.
5. Incentives, used carefully
Possible tax or Business Rate incentives may be considered, but only where they are linked to speed of delivery, usable capacity, security, welfare standards and verified contract performance.
Any incentive system must avoid encouraging unnecessary or prolonged detention.
The earlier idea of rewarding contractors for “successful removals” is treated here as an unresolved scrutiny question, not as an adopted commitment.
6. A staged expansion
- 01Stage: Expand capacity in stages rather than all at once.
- 02Inspect: Subject each stage to independent inspection.
- 03Test: Test performance, safeguards and value for money before going further.
- 04Extend: Extend nationally only where the evidence supports it.
7. Costing the proposal honestly
The master manifesto records an indicative £1–2 billion annual figure for the wider immigration system. It is not a confirmed cost for this proposal.
Construction, staffing, healthcare, security, legal oversight and ongoing operating costs must be independently modelled.
Indicative envelope
Indicative system-wide figure: £1–2 billion a year—not a confirmed cost for Policy 37.
8. Questions for scrutiny
- 01How much additional detention capacity is genuinely required?
- 02Where should new facilities be located?
- 03Should facilities be publicly operated, privately operated or use a mixed model?
- 04What minimum accommodation, healthcare and welfare standards should apply?
- 05How will detainees obtain timely legal advice?
- 06What independent inspection and complaints arrangements are required?
- 07How will the system protect children, trafficking victims and other vulnerable people?
- 08What limits and review procedures should apply to the length of detention?
- 09How can contracts reward good performance without incentivising unnecessary detention?
- 10Should tax or Business Rate incentives be used at all?
- 11What would construction and annual operating costs be?
- 12How should Parliament and the public monitor performance, incidents, spending and outcomes?
- 13Should contractors ever be rewarded for “successful removals”, or would that create an unacceptable incentive? This earlier idea remains an unresolved scrutiny question, not an adopted commitment.
9. The proposed direction
Proposal 34 would rapidly expand secure immigration detention capacity through tightly regulated government contracts, with asylum decisions and lawful removals remaining entirely under government control.
This is an illustrative citizen-led proposal. Final delivery must follow detailed legal, operational and financial scrutiny.
Source basis: Manifesto 1.1, Part XV, Policy 37, “Rapidly Expand Detention Capacity”, and Budget 3.1. The £1–2 billion figure relates to the wider immigration system and is not a confirmed cost for this proposal.
Read. Question. Challenge. Improve.
This is a public-scrutiny working proposal. Questions, evidence, objections and alternatives are welcome.
Have Your Say
What is your view on this proposal?
Scrutiny, not endorsement. Disagreement is as useful here as support.
Responses are counted anonymously and the running totals are shown publicly beside each option. One response per device, changeable at any time.
Have an objection, question or better alternative?
Set out your argument. Serious challenges shape later versions of the manifesto.