On August 29, 2025, the UK government abruptly ordered the removal of job advertisements for tutors offering balloon-craft, cake decorating, and other creative workshops to migrants awaiting deportation at the Heathrow Immigration Removal Centre. The move, which came after a burst of media attention and sharp political criticism, has reignited the debate over the treatment of asylum seekers and the use of public funds in Britain’s immigration system.
The controversy began when job listings appeared for hospitality and floristry tutors, painting and decorating instructors, and even a gym manager at Heathrow’s Colnbrook and Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centres. These facilities, located near the UK’s busiest airport, are the largest immigration removal centres in Europe and can house up to 965 residents at any given time, according to BBC reporting.
The advertisements, posted by the facilities management company Mitie, offered salaries upwards of £31,585 for the craft and hospitality roles, and nearly £39,000 for the gym manager position. Applicants were expected to “promote, design, as necessary, and deliver workshops in relevant creative skills including floristry, cake decorating, balloon-craft, arts and craft activities to meet the needs of the residents and contractual requirements.” The painting and decorating tutor was similarly tasked with “proactively promote, design and deliver painting and decorating workshops to resident.”
These postings did not go unnoticed by politicians and the public. Conservative shadow home secretary Chris Philp was quick to denounce the positions, telling The Sun and other outlets, “Labour are pouring taxpayers’ money into perks when every effort should be on deportations. Hiring gym managers and balloon craft tutors for people who must be removed is indefensible and must be stopped immediately. If you come here illegally, you should not be rewarded with courses and comforts, you should be deported swiftly.”
Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick echoed these sentiments, declaring, “The government has lost the plot. They’re so addicted to providing freebies that they’re even handing them out to foreign criminals when they’re about to be chucked out the country. It’s insane. These jobs should be withdrawn immediately and replaced by security officers that can increase deportations.”
Such comments reflect a broader political climate in the UK, where illegal migration has become a flashpoint issue. Recent Home Office figures show that 1,808 people are currently held in UK detention centres, and since Labour’s election victory, more than 52,000 migrants have reportedly arrived, as detailed by the Daily Mail. The debate has spilled into the streets, with regular protests outside asylum hotels and immigration centres, and political figures like Nigel Farage promising drastic action. Farage recently vowed to deport as many as 600,000 people if given power, proposing large-scale raids and up to five deportation flights per day.
In response to the uproar, Home Office minister Seema Malhotra moved swiftly. She instructed Mitie to remove the job advertisements, stating, “We do not believe all these roles are necessary and have told the Home Office to speak to Mitie to remove them.” Malhotra’s intervention was welcomed by some in government, with Health Minister Stephen Kinnock telling LBC, “My understanding of it is, they’re contractually obliged to have some kind of physical exercise, because you want to make sure that people aren’t falling into ill health, because that just makes it even worse for the taxpayer if we’re having to deal with that kind of thing. But it seems that there’s been an excessive interpretation of those contractual obligations and Seema Malhotra, the immigration minister, I’m very pleased to say, has rapidly responded to this and instructed Mitie to delete those jobs, and that is a good move on her part.”
Mitie, for its part, defended the roles as part of its contractual obligations to support the “physical and mental wellbeing of detained individuals.” A spokesperson for the company told BBC, “The impact of these services was highlighted in the recent His Majesty’s Inspector of Prisons report into Harmondsworth, which said that these provisions contributed to a greater overall focus on helping individuals to manage the stresses of detention.” Mitie’s contract with the Home Office, valued at £290 million since 2014, requires the company to provide a range of recreational and wellbeing services to detainees, including gym activities and arts workshops.
The debate is not merely a political spat; it touches on deeper questions about the purpose and conditions of immigration detention in the UK. Conditions at the Harmondsworth centre, in particular, have come under fire. A report published last year found that the facility had the “worst” conditions in the country, putting detainees at “imminent risk of harm,” with widespread drug use and violence. According to Detention Action, a charity advocating for asylum seekers’ rights, the government is failing to use detention as a last resort and is holding people for months or even years—over 60% of whom are eventually released. The charity’s director, James Wilson, stated, “The government should only use immigration detention as a last resort, and for the shortest time necessary. They are failing spectacularly on both counts. Until a time limit on detention is introduced, the government has a duty to support the mental health and wellbeing of the people it detains.”
Supporters of the wellbeing initiatives argue that providing creative and physical activities is not about luxury, but about basic human dignity and health. They point to the psychological toll of indefinite detention and the risk of deteriorating mental health among detainees. The Home Office’s own contractual requirements for Mitie appear to acknowledge these risks, mandating services that help residents manage the stresses of detention.
Yet, for critics, the optics are damning. With illegal migration dominating headlines and many Britons concerned about public spending, the idea of taxpayer-funded balloon-craft classes for those facing deportation is a political lightning rod. As Philp put it, “pouring taxpayers’ money into perks when every effort should be on deportations” is simply indefensible in the current climate.
For now, the controversial job postings have been pulled, and the government is reviewing the scope of its contracts for detainee services. But the episode has left lingering questions about the balance between humane treatment and deterrence, the responsibilities of private contractors like Mitie, and the direction of UK immigration policy in the months and years ahead.
As the dust settles, both sides of the argument remain firmly entrenched. For some, the withdrawal of these roles is a necessary correction—a sign that the government is listening to public concerns. For others, it’s a worrying step back from the commitment to basic wellbeing for some of society’s most vulnerable people. The debate over what is owed to those in detention, and at what cost, is far from over.
