Offshore Detention Divides MPs as Government Stresses Law, Value

High-Level Summary

Westminster Hall debated e‑petition 737105 on offshore detention and deportation of illegal immigrants, chaired by Derek Twigg and opened by John Lamont for the Petitions Committee. Supporters argued for offshore processing and wider deterrence measures, with some calling for legal changes and faster removals. Others opposed offshore detention on legal, humanitarian and cost grounds, and advocated safe and legal routes, faster decision making and stronger returns agreements. The Minister, Mike Tapp, outlined current Government actions on returns, enforcement and asylum reform, emphasising that any intervention must deliver value for money and comply with international obligations. The motion that the House had considered the petition was agreed.

Detailed Summary

E‑petition 737105: Offshore detention and deportation of illegal immigrants (Westminster Hall)

John Lamont introduced the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, noting that the petition called on the Government to “establish offshore detention facilities for individuals who enter the UK illegally, to process them and arrange their deportation” and had attracted over 720,000 signatures. He criticised hotel use and costs, calling it “grossly unfair that people illegally entering this country are being put up in hotels at the public’s expense”, cited the Public Accounts Committee’s finding that the asylum system is “under severe pressure, with high costs and persistent backlogs”, and argued that Ministers had not shown offshoring would be more costly than the status quo: “Offshore detention may well be costly and impractical, but the Government have not proven that point”. He added, “Their analysis is short on detail and long on assumptions about costs that do not seem credible”.

Contributors advocating stronger deterrence included James McMurdock, who said offshore centres’ “primary benefit is that they function as a deterrent”. Esther McVey linked deterrence to the Rwanda policy, arguing, “Without the Rwanda plan or deportation to another country, we have been left with no way to remove illegal immigrants”. Sarah Pochin urged a zero‑tolerance approach: “We need to detain and deport every illegal immigrant who lands on our shores”. The petitioner, Rupert Lowe, called for extensive legal changes, including to “repeal the Human Rights Act; withdraw from the European convention on human rights”. Kieran Mullan argued that control required making clear that “if someone comes here illegally, they do not get to stay—no ifs, ands or buts”.

Others urged caution or alternative approaches. Jonathan Brash backed firm border action but warned, “Offshore detention is something that I support in principle, but it is not a magic answer. It is expensive, it is legally complex”, and highlighted the impact of rhetoric on communities. Bell Ribeiro‑Addy opposed offshore detention on legal and cost grounds, stating that “seeking refuge and safety is not illegal” and that such detention “is in contravention of our obligations under international human rights and refugee law”, citing the Rwanda scheme as having “cost £700 million but under which only four people were voluntarily transferred”. Will Forster argued for safe and legal routes and an EU‑style returns arrangement: “We need safe and legal routes for asylum seekers and refugees” and “a watertight arrangement with the EU that would mean everyone arriving by small boat is at risk of being returned”.

Responding for the Government, the Minister, Mike Tapp, said “interventions must work in practice, they must offer value for money and they must comply with the UK’s international obligations”. He reported operational outcomes including that “Over 44,000 channel crossings have been stopped in partnership with the French”, that “many of our returns agreements are underpinned by our membership of the ECHR”, and that “we have removed or deported nearly 70,000 people who were here illegally” since the election. He described wider reforms as “the most significant set of asylum reforms in a generation”, said small boat crossings were “down 41% in the last year”, and noted progress on accommodation, including that “Hotel use is down from 213 in July 2024 to fewer than 170 today”, alongside plans for capped safe and legal routes “to be introduced in due course”.

Outcome: The motion was agreed—“Resolved, That this House has considered e‑petition 737105 relating to offshore detention and deportation of illegal immigrants”.