Nigel Farage at a press conference in Westminster (Image: Getty)

It comes after the Green Party’s migration policies, which were voted on and passed by members previously, included abolishing immigration detention, giving illegal arrivals visas, providing asylum seekers with accommodation and allowing asylum seekers to lawfully work.

These have now been removed from its website.

“Even though illegal migrants will not be allowed to leave the sites, we are committing to not placing these detention sites in areas with a Reform MP or where Reform controls the council. Given the Green Party advocate for open borders and for an infinite number of undocumented men to come here, we will prioritise Green constituencies and Green controlled councils to locate these detention centres.

Constituencies with Green MPs currently include Gorton and Denton in Manchester, Bristol Central, North Herefordshire, Waveney Valley on the Norfolk-Suffolk border and Brighton Pavilion.

Greens and Reform UK are set to make major gains at local elections on Thursday, including potentially being the largest party on multiple councils.

Polanski’s Party is eyeing victory in inner London boroughs, parts of the Midlands and parts of the north of England.

Reform UK said it would build detention capacity for at least 24,000 illegal migrants at a time.

Home Office decisions about where to place detention centres, also known as immigration removal centres (IRCs), are taken in accordance with government procurement and planning rules.

But Reform UK said it will ensure that prioritising Green-controlled areas for building IRCs is not frustrated by legal challenges that “contradict democratic decisions”.

Mr Farage will need to introduce primary legislation, leave the European Convention of Human Rights and repeal the Human Rights Act to “stop or oust” the possibility of judicial reviews.

A Green Party spokesman said: “Reform keep making unserious announcements to try and distract voters from they fact they want to privatise our NHS. Greens are focused on building council housing, fixing our public services and bringing down the cost of living.”

Reform UK Vows to Prioritise Green Party Areas for Migrant Detention Centres

Reform UK has unveiled a controversial proposal to prioritise Green Party-controlled areas when deciding where new migrant detention centres should be built, placing immigration policy at the centre of an increasingly sharp political contest between the two parties.

The proposal was announced as Reform UK expanded its campaign on immigration and mass deportation. Under the plan, a future Reform government would not place migrant detention facilities in parliamentary constituencies represented by Reform MPs or in council areas controlled by Reform. Instead, the party says it would prioritise Green-controlled constituencies and councils for the construction of new detention facilities.

The announcement has generated criticism from the Green Party, Labour and some Conservative politicians, who have questioned whether government infrastructure should be allocated according to the political preferences of local voters.

Reform, however, has presented the policy as an issue of what it calls “democratic consent”. The party argues that communities represented by politicians supporting more liberal immigration policies should have a greater role in accommodating the infrastructure required to implement those policies.

The proposal has therefore become about more than the location of detention centres. It has opened a wider debate about immigration, local democracy, political responsibility and the limits of government power.

According to the Reform proposal, the party wants to create detention capacity for at least 24,000 migrants at any one time. A draft document known as the “Mass Deportation (Detention) Bill” has been published alongside the campaign. The document proposes a statutory requirement to provide at least 24,000 immigration detention places across the United Kingdom.

The draft legislation is a political proposal rather than an existing law or government policy. The areas where facilities would be located have not been finally specified in the draft document.

The proposal reflects Reform UK’s broader approach to immigration.

The party has made tougher border controls, increased detention capacity and large-scale removals central elements of its immigration platform. Reform argues that the current system has failed to provide sufficient control over irregular migration and that stronger enforcement is required.

The proposed detention network would form part of that wider strategy.

Detention is already an established component of Britain’s immigration system. People can be detained under immigration powers in circumstances set out in law, including while removal arrangements are being made. However, Reform’s proposed capacity of 24,000 places would represent a substantial expansion of the existing system.

Official figures show that immigration detention already involves thousands of people each year. According to Home Office statistics cited in analysis of the Reform proposal, 22,996 people entered immigration detention during the year ending December 2025. At the same time, 51% of those leaving detention were released on immigration bail rather than removed from the UK.

These figures demonstrate that detention does not automatically result in deportation.

There are legal and administrative stages involved in the immigration process, and individuals can be released while their cases continue.

Reform’s proposal would therefore represent not simply an expansion of existing facilities but a major increase in the physical capacity available to detain people under immigration powers.

The party has also linked the policy directly to electoral geography.

Under the proposal, Reform-controlled councils would not be prioritised for detention centres. Instead, Green-controlled councils would be prioritised.

Reform’s campaign website reportedly uses the slogan “Vote Green Get Illegals” and includes a postcode checker and map indicating areas that the party says could be prioritised under its policy.

That political messaging has generated strong reactions.

Green politicians have accused Reform of attempting to punish communities for how they vote. Mothin Ali, the Green Party’s co-deputy leader, criticised the proposal, while Scottish Green co-leader Ross Greer argued that Reform was effectively telling voters that their political choices could determine whether their communities hosted detention facilities.

Labour has also criticised the proposal.

Labour chair Anna Turley described the policy as evidence of what she characterised as Reform’s disregard for voters, including people who support Reform itself. The argument from critics is that decisions about public infrastructure should be based on practical considerations rather than electoral results.

There has also been criticism from the political right.

Former Conservative minister Simon Clarke questioned whether the proposal could amount to an inappropriate use of ministerial power for political purposes and suggested that aspects of the plan could face legal challenges.

The legal questions are particularly significant because the draft bill contains provisions that would affect existing planning and procurement rules.

The document reportedly proposes disapplying certain elements of existing legislation in relation to the construction and operation of detention centres. It also contains a clause stating that a court would not be able to question the exercise of powers under the proposed legislation.

Such provisions would be likely to attract significant scrutiny if Reform ever attempted to introduce them into Parliament.

The relationship between immigration policy and local government has become increasingly important as councils across Britain deal with the consequences of migration.

Local authorities can become involved in issues ranging from housing and social services to community cohesion and public infrastructure. The accommodation of asylum seekers has already generated political disputes in several parts of the country.

Reform’s proposed detention-centre policy adds another dimension because it explicitly connects local political representation with the location of immigration infrastructure.

The party’s argument is essentially that political parties supporting particular immigration policies should accept some of the practical consequences of those policies.

That argument is politically powerful because it attempts to turn immigration from a national policy question into a local political issue.

A Green-controlled council, for example, could potentially find itself identified as a candidate for a detention centre under the Reform proposal even if local residents had not specifically voted on whether such a facility should be built.

This raises questions about the meaning of “democratic consent”.

Voting for a political party does not necessarily mean that every voter agrees with every policy adopted by that party. Nor does an election normally provide a direct mandate for individual infrastructure projects.

The Greens have therefore argued that Reform’s interpretation of democratic consent is too broad.

Reform, on the other hand, says the policy is intended to make the consequences of immigration policy visible and ensure that areas represented by parties supporting more liberal approaches do not avoid the infrastructure associated with those policies.

The dispute reflects a deeper disagreement about how responsibility should be distributed.

Reform wants to make immigration enforcement a central responsibility of national government while simultaneously using local political control as a factor in determining where facilities should be located.

Its critics argue that this risks turning public administration into a form of political retaliation.

The debate also comes against the background of continuing irregular migration across the English Channel.

Small-boat arrivals have become one of the most politically sensitive aspects of Britain’s immigration system. Reform has repeatedly argued that the government needs much stronger measures to deter crossings, detain people and facilitate removals.

The party has previously proposed substantially increasing detention capacity as part of a wider mass-deportation programme.

The new proposal therefore represents a continuation of Reform’s existing immigration strategy rather than an isolated announcement.

At the same time, the scale of the proposed detention estate would create major practical questions.

Finding suitable sites would be one challenge. Constructing and operating facilities would require substantial public resources. Staffing, security, healthcare, legal access and transportation would also have to be provided.

There would also be questions about how people detained under immigration powers would be processed and how quickly cases could be resolved.

The proposal’s 24,000-place target is considerably larger than Britain’s current detention capacity.

This means that implementing the plan would require a substantial expansion of the existing system.

Reform argues that such expansion would be necessary if the government were serious about large-scale removals.

Critics question whether detention on such a scale would be practical, affordable or legally sustainable.

The disagreement therefore extends beyond political rhetoric.

If Reform were ever to form a government and attempt to implement the policy, it would have to deal with Parliament, the courts, local authorities, planning requirements, public procurement and the operational realities of immigration enforcement.

The draft bill’s attempt to reduce some of those legal constraints is likely to become an important part of the debate.

The proposal has also intensified the emerging political rivalry between Reform UK and the Greens.

Both parties have attempted to attract voters dissatisfied with Labour and the Conservatives, but they occupy very different positions on immigration.

Reform has made border control and deportation central to its political platform.

The Greens have generally taken a much more liberal approach to migration and asylum.

That ideological difference provides an obvious source of political conflict.

Reform’s decision to explicitly target Green-controlled areas demonstrates how immigration policy is increasingly being used as a tool of political competition between the parties.

For Green politicians, the challenge is to respond to Reform’s proposal while maintaining their own position on migration.

For Reform, the challenge is to demonstrate that its proposed system could operate effectively within Britain’s legal and administrative framework.

The controversy is therefore unlikely to disappear.

A future government would need to determine where detention facilities should be located based on a range of considerations, including capacity, security, transport, infrastructure and local impact.

Whether political control should be one of those considerations is now at the heart of the argument.

Reform UK says prioritising Green-controlled areas would demonstrate what it calls democratic responsibility.

Its opponents argue that public facilities should not be used to punish communities for their electoral choices.

The disagreement reflects a much broader argument about the future of British immigration policy.

At its centre are questions about how many people should be detained, how immigration rules should be enforced, how removals should be conducted and how the costs and consequences of immigration policy should be distributed across the country.

For Reform UK, the proposed 24,000-place detention network is part of a much larger programme aimed at increasing immigration enforcement.

For its critics, the proposal raises concerns about proportionality, legality and the principle of political neutrality in public administration.

The draft bill remains a proposal rather than law, and the specific locations of any future facilities have not been determined.

What the announcement has demonstrated, however, is how central immigration has become to the political competition between Reform and the Greens.

As Britain continues to debate its asylum system, border controls and the future of migration policy, the question of where detention facilities should be located is likely to remain contentious.

The Reform proposal has added a new element to that debate by connecting the issue directly to local electoral politics.

Whether that approach would ever become government policy will depend on future elections, parliamentary approval, legal scrutiny and the practical feasibility of the proposed system.

For now, the announcement stands as one of Reform UK’s clearest statements that immigration enforcement would be a major priority under a future Reform government — and that the party intends to make the political consequences of immigration policy part of the local as well as national debate.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.