That this House has considered e-petition 737105 relating to offshore detention and deportation of illegal immigrants.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg, and to open this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I will speak today in my role as a member of the Committee; in doing so, I am obliged to give not only my own views on the issue, but those of the petitioners and the campaigners who have sought this debate. I will set out what the petition seeks, its merits and some points worth considering further. Of course, I have my own views, which I will share throughout the debate.
I congratulate the petitioner on setting up the petition. Unusually, he is one of our colleagues: the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe). The petition calls on the Government to
“establish offshore detention facilities for individuals who enter the UK illegally, to process them and arrange their deportation.”
It closed in March with over 720,000 signatures from every part of the United Kingdom, including from a great many of my constituents in Galashiels, Hawick, Kelso, Jedburgh and across the Scottish Borders. The number of signatures that the petition attracted reflects the strength of feeling on immigration.
Let me set out the scale of the problem that has prompted the petition. Each year, tens of thousands of people are entering the United Kingdom illegally, mainly travelling by small boat across the English channel. There is a process for those fleeing war and persecution to seek asylum in this country. The people coming here illegally are not following that process. They are not doing the right thing. They are breaking the law. When they get to this country, it becomes incredibly difficult for them to be removed. Nearly everyone who arrives here goes on to claim asylum, even if their claim is dubious. Even in circumstances in which it is clear that they should not be here, perhaps because of a criminal record, it is challenging to remove those who hide behind the process.
Those abusing the process benefit from the fact that our asylum system is broken. Resolution of asylum claims takes far too long—often years for the initial case, and then potentially far longer on appeal. As of March this year, over 10,000 people were waiting more than a year, and nearly 100,000 people were in asylum accommodation, including more than 20,000 in hotels. As these claims go on, people are housed by the state. The policy of housing asylum seekers in hotels is one of the signatories’ main objections to UK asylum policy. They are correct in their assessment of the moral flaws of the policy. A system has been created that seems to encourage and reward those who make an asylum claim even if they have no real chance of success or fair basis for doing so.
Does my hon. Friend agree that this issue is ultimately about fairness for our constituents, who are paying their taxes and are seeing someone who has come here illegally benefiting from services more than they may be able to, as residents who pay tax? Does he agree that we must absolutely consider offshore detention and consider offshore processing? We must say, “If you come here illegally, you will be deported.”
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is about a sense of fairness. The system is not working in the best interests of our constituents, and I am sure that his 1,138 constituents who signed the petition feel that unfairness.
With the incentive of guaranteed mainland accommodation removed, the numbers requiring processing at any one time would fall to the low thousands, rather than the tens of thousands currently housed. The petitioner has based his argument on evidence such as that gathered by the Public Accounts Committee, which reported last month that the asylum system in the UK is
“under severe pressure, with high costs and persistent backlogs.”
The same inquiry found that repeated attempts at reform had failed to fix long-standing problems, and that short-term fixes had tended to push pressure from one part of the system to another rather than resolve it. More strikingly, the Committee recorded that the Home Office could only say that it knew where “the vast majority” of failed asylum seekers were. The Committee called that “shocking and unacceptable”. The vast majority of British people agree. The Committee’s conclusion was that the current accommodation model is “poor value for money”.
The Government response to the petition says that offshore detention would be “costly and impractical”. On that point, the Government seem to be grasping at straws and to be woefully underprepared. Two words that undoubtedly apply to the current system are “costly” and “impractical”. Offshore detention may well be costly and impractical, but the Government have not proven that point. What is worse, they have not come close to proving that it would be more costly or impractical than the current system, which was found by a cross-party Committee of this place not to provide value for money.
The signatories to the petition would be well within their rights to ask the Government to publish all the relevant figures for the current system, break that system down on a cost basis and let people see how broken it is at every stage. Have the Government assessed the cost to every individual community of providing services to those claiming asylum? The answer is no. They certainly have not come close to doing so—nor do they want to, because the cost to local services is not a simple number. It includes the ongoing cost for already strained local services and the breakdown in community cohesion. Some of it cannot be captured on a simple ledger, but is nevertheless very expensive for our country.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, and I am grateful to the 1,744 people in Hartlepool who signed the petition. That is a significant number of my constituents, and their concerns deserve to be heard and taken seriously.
Let me begin by saying something very clearly. The people of Hartlepool are entitled to be angry about immigration. They are entitled to expect secure borders. They are entitled to expect that those with no right to be in this country are removed. They are entitled to expect fairness in the asylum system and fairness for the communities that feel they have carried more than their fair share, and I share in those expectations. I have supported the Home Secretary’s measures to reduce illegal immigration, strengthen border security and increase returns, and I will continue to support this Home Secretary, including on the measures that will be laid before the House later today, which I hope this House will pass in full.
The truth is that progress is being made. Net migration has fallen dramatically from the peak under the previous Government’s Boris wave: it is down 82%, delivering the reduction that was promised for years but never achieved. Indeed, the figures are now entering the tens of thousands that Conservative Administrations promised for so long. Small boat crossings are down 41% this year, while deportations of those arriving by small boat are up 16%. In Hartlepool, the number of asylum seekers living in dispersed accommodation has fallen by 14% since the general election.
The new immigration and asylum legislation will further strengthen the powers available to remove those with no right to be here and deter those attempting to enter illegally. That is the serious work of Government. It requires law enforcement, international co-operation, proper returns agreements, faster decisions and a system that can distinguish between genuine asylum claimants and those who have no right to remain.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.
For three decades, successive Governments have promised to get tough on illegal immigration, yet according to Home Office figures, in the last seven years alone around half a million people have claimed asylum in the UK; of those, 200,000 came in on small boats and most of the others were visa overstayers. In that time, around 60% of all asylum claimants have been granted refugee status, including those granted after appeal, and it is estimated that 66% of adults with refugee status are now claiming universal credit. That means that since 2019 up to 300,000 people who illegally entered or remained in the United Kingdom have been granted refugee status, and most could now be claiming benefits, including housing benefit. By 2030, that number could be over 400,000—a city the size of Coventry, composed almost entirely of people who should have never been allowed to stay in the United Kingdom.
What is frightening about these numbers, going back decades, is that we have no real idea of just how many illegal immigrants and visa overstayers are in this country, living under the radar in our communities. Poor record keeping by the Home Office means that the population of people with no right to remain in the United Kingdom is highly likely to be over 1 million. Thousands go missing every year, and the Government still fail to monitor properly whether migrants leave the UK after their visas expire. Labour says it is tackling the problem, but it is simply increasing the speed at which illegal immigrants are granted asylum. The Government have increased legal aid for appeals by 30%, to over £60 million a year, and a record 80,000 appeals are under way. Since the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has been Prime Minister, there have been more than 72,000 small boat arrivals, with no serious attempt made to stop them.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.
First, I will acknowledge that although I disagree with the premise of this petition, I recognise the strength of feeling among the hundreds of thousands of people who signed it. However, I cannot support calls for offshore detention or processing centres, and nor will I support calls to immediately deport those who enter this country through irregular routes, because seeking refuge and safety is not illegal, and many safe and legal routes do not actually exist.
I strongly believe that Members who support what this petition calls for are not being honest with the wider public about what it would cost, how it is a risk and what the true problems are. Of the people who enter the UK via an irregular route, 95% submit an asylum application. That means that we, as a signatory to the 1951 refugee convention, have a legal duty to assess their claim and place them under the care of the state while that process is ongoing. If their application is rejected, the state’s duty to them persists until the appeals process is exhausted. If that takes too long, it is inefficient, which is on us.
Human Rights Watch and a number of other organisations have confirmed what most of us believe to be true, namely that holding asylum seekers in offshore detention is in contravention of our obligations under international human rights and refugee law. Regardless of whether a person’s application is deemed to be legitimate, they cannot be held in an offshore site until their asylum claim and subsequent appeals have been denied.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for moving the motion and to the vast number of people—720,000, including 1,093 from my constituency of Tatton—who signed this important petition and prompted this debate calling for offshore detention and deportation of illegal immigrants.
According to Home Office data, just under 77,000 illegal immigrants have arrived by small boat since Labour took charge in July 2024. The average number of daily arrivals under Labour has been about 104, some 94% higher than under the previous Conservative Government —an extraordinary increase. On Friday just gone, 10 July, another shameful record was set: the highest number of illegal immigrants on a single dinghy, 128, arrived in the UK. A total of 225 arrived in three dinghies on that day.
That has happened under a Government who pledged to reduce illegal migration, promising to “smash the gangs”—but those promises turned out to be smoke and mirrors. I say it was just to secure a general election victory, because reducing immigration is just not in Labour’s DNA. A fleeting search online is enough to reveal images of Cabinet members clutching “Refugees Welcome” signs. Without doubt, one of the biggest mistakes that the Prime Minister made, in a strong field, was to cancel the Rwanda scheme—an offshore processing centre and permanent resettlement programme.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. First, I want to thank the 720,772 British men and women who signed our petition demanding the mass deportation of illegal migrants—a policy position that has moved from the so-called mad fringe to the acceptable mainstream in less than two years. The question is no longer whether Britain has a problem. We know the problem; it has been well documented. Now we need solutions. Restore Britain is the first and only political party to publish a comprehensive plan not just to stop future illegal immigration but to remove those who have no legal right to remain in this country. All of them—every man, woman and child—must be deported. A Restore Britain Government will do exactly that.
I am not going to stand here and outline the problem; we all know what is wrong. I will tell this Parliament exactly how we can remove millions of illegal migrants. As we have seen time and again, deportation is routinely frustrated by a carefully designed maze of legislation, international treaties and legal challenges. A Restore Britain Government would repeal or amend the domestic legislation that prevents swift deportation; repeal the Human Rights Act; withdraw from the European convention on human rights; and remove the refugee convention from domestic immigration law.
I would like to understand the point about detention centres. How many places would be required, and over what period? How does the hon. Gentleman think that this is even feasible, given that the previous Government managed to build only one new prison in 14 years?
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. I am not going to go into detail; it is all in this policy document. I will give her one to take away.
Specialist detention facilities would be constructed near airfields to hasten the process. Britain would negotiate far stronger bilateral return agreements while working with allies to create a deportation NATO—a coalition of like-minded countries applying co-ordinated diplomatic and economic pressure on Governments that refused to accept back their own citizens. That would include harmonised visa sanctions, co-ordinated suspension of visa issuance, foreign aid suspension, targeted trade measures and tariffs, remittance and dividend controls and taxation, and a rapid response returns taskforce. Pakistan would be the first country to feel the full force of those measures.
Sanctions from a single country are easier to absorb, but a unified bloc of economies and travel markets creates systematic and severe pressure. Co-ordinated restrictions would also close loopholes whereby nationals bypass one state’s measures by moving to another jurisdiction. All that would be delivered alongside the credible and proven threat of action. Do it once, hard enough, and it would not be required again.
We must also revoke all asylum grants awarded following illegal entry and retrospectively revoke protection so that those individuals are also removed. If someone arrived in Britain illegally on a small boat, they would be deported, regardless of what their current status may claim. People ask whether this is achievable. Restore Britain says yes, but only if the Government finally demonstrate the robust political will required.
It is a pleasure and an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the 1,673 South Basildon and East Thurrock constituents who took the time to sign the petition.
When discussing illegal migration, we must begin with a simple truth: a nation that cannot control its borders cannot fully control its future. Offshore detention and processing centres are not a perfect solution, but they can be an effective one. Their primary benefit is that they function as a deterrent. If individuals know that arriving illegally will not guarantee entry into the country, the incentive to make dangerous journeys is significantly reduced.
That matters not only for border security, but for saving lives. Every year, criminal gangs profit from putting vulnerable people into overcrowded boats and sending them across some of the world’s busiest shipping lanes. We should be focusing on that. I thank the hon. Members who have leaned into the importance of being considerate to all people. On top of the need for gentle language, I might advise them that we should really be protecting those people and keeping them safe by enforcing laws properly so that they do not risk their lives at sea.
Offshore processing could also restore confidence in the immigration system. Most people are compassionate and willing to support those with genuine claims for asylum. However, public confidence is undermined when the distinction between legal and illegal routes becomes blurred. A system that is firm, fair and consistently enforced is ultimately in the interests of both citizens and legitimate refugees.
5:22 pm
20 of 49 shown
This is not about those who fairly claim asylum, but about those who abuse the system. The practice of using hotels for these people has led to justified public anger. At a time when normal British citizens are struggling to make ends meet and working hard only to pay huge sums in taxes to fund services that are declining, it is grossly unfair that people illegally entering this country are being put up in hotels at the public’s expense.
The Government have started to use dedicated sites larger than hotels, on the basis that concentrating provision is more manageable than dispersing tens of thousands of people across hundreds of hotels the length and breadth of the country. In further information that the petitioner submitted ahead of today’s debate, he argues that if consolidation into larger mainline sites is already accepted as an improvement on hotels, the logical next step is to consolidate provision entirely. Offshoring at a single location with one integrated set of services, including accommodation, healthcare, legal support, translation and case management, would replace the costly current patchwork of provision. It would provide clearer entry and exit controls. Crucially, it is argued that it would have a genuine deterrent effect that dispersed mainland accommodation cannot deliver.
Many in the SNP, Labour and the Greens wish to portray an effective immigration system and a strong deterrent as somehow morally wrong. They regard any policy designed to protect our borders as outrageous. Yet internationally, offshore detention and similar measures have been effective and are increasingly being considered by Governments of all political persuasions. Australia’s move to offshore processing coincided with a sharp fall in boat arrivals from 2001, and the Australian Government maintain that offshore processing is very effective. Other countries, including Italy and Denmark, have brought in similar measures to those that the petitioner seeks. Many others, including Germany, Austria, Denmark and Greece, have considered return hub facilities outside the European Union.
No matter what some politicians think, those policies are not far right. It is right that they be properly considered. This Government have not done so appropriately. They have not seriously considered an approach that other countries have implemented successfully and that others are now looking at. They dismiss the views of the signatories to the petition and the huge number of people across the country who support it. Their analysis is short on detail and long on assumptions about costs that do not seem credible.
The truth of the matter is that our immigration system is broken beyond belief, and the British people know all about it. I represent a rural constituency in Scotland, but this issue fills my postbag and comes up time and again on doorsteps and in my advice surgeries. It comes up because my constituents, far from the English channel, can see that they are paying and that our country is suffering for this broken system. They see that we struggle to deport even serial criminals. That is why more than 700,000 people have signed the petition. They deserve to be heard, and they deserve to hear from this Government that all the substantive and reasonable options must be put on the table to fix this broken immigration system.
This is not the time to dismiss, for political or ideological reasons, proposals that are grounded in evidence and that seek to provide a real solution to one of our country’s biggest ongoing issues. The Government should take the petition seriously. They should consider a new approach to immigration. They must consider establishing offshore detention facilities for people who enter the United Kingdom illegally.
I fully understand why people sign a petition like this. They see boat crossings in the channel. They see asylum accommodation in their communities. They see the pressure on housing, schools, public services and community cohesion. They feel that for far too long the broken system —broken by the Conservative party—has not worked, and they want action. They are right to expect it, but we also have a responsibility in this place to be honest. Offshore detention is something that I support in principle, but it is not a magic answer. It is expensive, it is legally complex and it does not remove the need for returns agreements, effective administration and tackling the criminal gangs who profit from human misery—but I reiterate that if we can make it work, in principle I support it.
More importantly, the language we use matters. It affects how people view their neighbours, it affects how communities feel and it affects people’s lives. That brings me to a point that I want to make very clearly.
A constituent, Jasvir Singh, came to see me a couple of weeks ago after experiencing repeated racial abuse in the community where he has lived and served for almost 30 years. He owns a local business and has paid his taxes; he has contributed to Hartlepool and built a life there. He has done exactly what we say we value, yet he came to see me because the rhetoric around immigration has made his life harder. Jasvir is not an illegal immigrant, and he is not a criminal; he has every right to be here and he is part of our community, yet a small minority accuse him of being an illegal immigrant, of having arrived on a small boat and of having no right to be here, and they do so for one reason alone: the colour of his skin.
When politicians blur the line between voicing legitimate concern about illegal immigration and using language that encourages suspicion of people because of their background or their skin colour, it is people like Jasvir who pay the price. That is why the rhetoric we use matters. There is a line between wanting secure borders and stirring up hostility; there is a line between removing those with no right to remain and portraying whole communities as a threat; there is a line between legitimate concern and racist dog-whistle politics, and it is my view that that line has been crossed repeatedly by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe).
When that happens, the consequences are not confined to Westminster Hall. They are felt by people like Jasvir. They are felt by families in Hartlepool. They are felt by children who hear abuse on their way to school. Words spoken in this place do not stay here. They travel into communities and workplaces and on to social media. That does not mean that we should avoid the issue—quite the opposite. We must continue to reduce illegal immigration, we must continue to strengthen our borders, we must remove those with no right to remain and we must dismantle criminal gangs and restore public confidence, but we must do so in a way that is serious, lawful and above all decent.
Hartlepool understands the pressure that the issue creates. One of my first actions on being elected as MP for Hartlepool was to meet Mears, the company responsible for asylum accommodation locally, because Hartlepool carries more than its fair share compared with neighbouring areas. I made clear that the system had to be fair, that responsibility could not simply fall on communities already facing significant challenges, and that local people deserved answers. Following those conversations, new asylum accommodation in Hartlepool was halted and numbers fell.
I will continue to raise this issue with Ministers because fairness matters. Hartlepool is a proud and welcoming town that believes in fairness. Fairness means secure borders and removing those who have no right to be here, but it also means standing up for the people who belong here and ensuring they are not made to feel like strangers because of the colour of their skin or the sound of their name. That is the balance we need: strong borders, faster removals, proper enforcement, serious government and politics that does not make innocent people pay the price for failures in the immigration system.
The people who signed this petition deserve answers, and my answer is this: I will continue to support firm action to reduce illegal immigration, I will support strengthening our borders and I will support practical measures that work, but I will not support rhetoric that puts my constituents at risk, I will not support language that turns legitimate concern into racial hostility, and I will not stay silent when people who have lived in, worked in and contributed to Hartlepool for decades are made to feel that they no longer belong.
We can have secure borders without losing that most fundamental of British values: common decency. We can have firm immigration controls without attacking decent people based on their skin colour, and we can tell the truth about illegal immigration without turning on our neighbours. We will not import Trumpian politics into our country. That is not the British way.
Why is all this such a problem? It is a problem because their presence corrodes the rule of law, costs billions in accommodation and welfare, distorts low-wage labour markets, and signals to the world that Britain’s borders are open. Illegal immigrants from some countries have a medieval attitude to women and girls. Sexual assault and rape by migrants from certain countries is far higher than among our indigenous population, and it is 20 times higher for those from Afghanistan. There are documented examples of illegal immigrants loitering outside schools, filming children, following girls and trying to engage with them for sex. Let me give hon. Members some specific, harrowing examples.
Sheraz Malik, an illegal immigrant of Pakistani origin who had been in the UK less than 12 months, raped a vulnerable young girl in a park in Sutton-in-Ashfield. Deng Majek, an illegal immigrant of Sudanese origin, arrived in the UK in July 2024; by October 2024, he had stalked and murdered 27-year-old Rhiannon Whyte. Abdulla Ahmadi, Ibrahim Alshafe and Karin Al-Danasurt, illegal migrants of Iranian and Egyptian origin, arrived in the UK in June 2025; by October 2025, they had targeted a young vulnerable woman on a night out in Brighton, beaten her, choked her and gang-raped her. I could go on—there are pages of examples. The safety of women and girls in this country is at risk because of our immigration policy.
Furthermore, we know that criminals are entering our country on small boats, bringing with them contacts into ruthless organised crime gangs that operate on our high streets, laundering money, dealing drugs, and selling illegal vapes and cigarettes to children, yet no DNA is taken on arrival. Why not? What about our homeless veterans, or British citizens on housing lists who find themselves being pushed aside and left behind in favour of illegal migrants who are housed instead of them?
The total annual cost of the asylum system is over £8 billion and rising. We cannot sustain this; we are not a food bank or a hotel for the world. Illegal immigration is helping to bankrupt this country. Our high streets are being overrun by crime, our women and girls are under attack, and our culture is under threat. Why does anyone think that that is okay?
We need to detain and deport every illegal immigrant who lands on our shores, and we need to put the Navy in the channel to stop illegal immigrants from landing on our shores. Those who are here illegally need to be moved offshore, processed and returned to their country of origin. We need to leave the European convention on human rights to put an end to the years of appeals that result in hardly any illegal immigrants ever being deported. We need to stop the invasion of our country by those who have no right to be here, and who come because they know they will get a free house, free food, benefits and medical treatment ahead of our own citizens. And no one who has come here illegally or remained here illegally should ever be granted British citizenship.
To summarise, we need to detain, we need to deport and we need a zero-tolerance policy. It is about a Government having the will to do so. Other countries have secured their borders; if we are to survive, we must do the same.
The petition that we are debating today raises the issue of asylum seekers being held in hotels and temporary accommodation. I certainly agree that that is unacceptable; I have seen for myself the diabolical conditions in such accommodation. The Home Office is paying millions each day to house asylum seekers, but that is not the fault of the asylum seekers themselves. It is the fault of the Home Office and the private contractors who seek to make a profit off the backs of vulnerable people.
I do not dismiss the views of those who support the petition, but the public debate does not provide accurate information. It regularly conflates the number of legal migrants and so-called illegal migrants. Indeed, migration and asylum are among the most misrepresented issues in public debate. The UK receives far fewer asylum claims per capita than countries such as Germany, France and Cyprus. Also, in most cases asylum seekers are barred from working here, so claims that they are taking jobs or living off benefits do not actually recognise the fact that asylum seekers are desperate for the right to contribute but are trapped in the system. In addition, the language of “swarms” and “invasions” is just inflammatory, racist and dehumanising, and it continues to cause problems throughout the discourse and debate on this subject.
While we are discussing how much things cost, which again is a huge concern, we must realise that offshore detention can never be a cheaper alternative than the current system. It is far more costly—as was proved by the last Government, with their failed Rwanda scheme that cost £700 million but under which only four people were voluntarily transferred. Other examples of offshore processing centres operated by Australia, Italy and Denmark show how costly they can be. They are not meeting those countries’ aims, but are causing huge problems and perpetuating those countries’ engagement in really awful rhetoric about migrants—just as we are, while the costs increase again and again.
I want us to be able to talk about asylum seekers with some humanity and not to cast off those in our communities who have come here to seek support from us. As I have said again and again, we have a duty to them under the refugee convention and a moral duty to them. The conversation about funding that we keep on having is completely missing the point: it misses the Home Office backlog and the continuing engagement in negative rhetoric of politicians here. When we look at the issue of offshore detention, we have to be realistic with the country about how much it is going to cost and about the fact that it will not solve the issue at hand.
We know that deterrence is an important component in tackling organised immigration crime. As Steve Rodhouse, director general of operations at the National Crime Agency, told the Home Affairs Committee in 2019, the
“people willing to make the journey”
across the channel know
“that there is a very low risk that they will be returned.”
I am sure that that is more true today than it was even then.
The Rwanda agreement would have tackled the issue head on. It would have allowed for the forceful relocation of asylum seekers, people who had already been refused asylum, and those who made unauthorised illegal journeys to the UK. Rwanda would then have granted them asylum or permanent residence. The National Crime Agency described the scheme as a deterrent; in fact, we were starting to see dinghies from France heading to Ireland and other countries. There was a drop in illegal channel crossings in 2023, after the plan was announced: they went from 45,000 in 2022 to 29,000 in 2023—a 35% decrease. Without the Rwanda plan or deportation to another country, we have been left with no way to remove illegal immigrants—those who destroy their documents to hide their country of origin.
Like much of this Government’s foreign policy, the weaknesses of this Labour Government have become opportunities for other countries. The United States has signed agreements with 34 countries to allow for third-country deportations, and, according to the Migration Policy Institute, the US Government have plans to contact at least another 50 countries about similar agreements, including—you guessed it—Rwanda. The model has expanded across Europe, too. The EU is now in the process of adopting legislation permitting EU member states to reach agreements with non-EU member states for the establishment of return hubs. Those are logical decisions and policies. But the Government failed to see that; as a result, illegal immigration has soared.
As the petition rightly points out, the
“current use of hotels and temporary accommodation is unsustainable, costly and dangerous.”
We simply cannot have people breaking into our country and being rewarded for their criminality with hotel accommodation, healthcare, travel, translation services, recreational facilities and more, costing British taxpayers billions of pounds a year. We have seen just how dangerous that can be, as horrific case after horrific case has shown: the brutal and frenzied murder of Walsall hotel worker Rhiannon Whyte by a Sudanese illegal immigrant who had just arrived by small boat three months previously; Haybe Nur, a Somali national, walked into a bank and stabbed a father of three dead; Hadush Kebatu arrived by boat and was then convicted of multiple sexual assaults; and Ahmad Mulakhil was found guilty of raping a 12-year-old. That is the reality of not knowing who is coming into our country.
These policy failures are not only putting communities in danger; it is downright unfair on society to prioritise illegal immigrants in this way. Look at the plan for Stoke Heath in Shropshire, where the Home Office was all set to move immigrants into brand-new housing. That was a kick in the teeth for local families, who were told that that estate would offer affordable or social housing for them—many had been waiting on the housing list for years. What about veterans? Where is their brand-new housing? Where are we housing them? Thankfully, the Stoke Heath community seems to have stopped the plan in its tracks, having put up fierce opposition to the Government. The Home Secretary now tells us that new-build estates like that will “never be considered again”; we can only hope that that is true.
Labour has not “smashed the gangs” as it promised, but it is certainly succeeding in smashing our local communities, which are forced to play host to a sudden influx of illegal immigrants. This Government talk tough, but that is all they do: talk tough without action. The reality is that until the Government develop a spine, reinstate the Rwanda scheme, take the UK out of the ECHR and repeal the Human Rights Act 1998, we have no chance of deporting those who come here illegally.
We would also introduce what we call the great clarification Act, reaffirming that we in these buildings have the final say on immigration policy and allowing Parliament to overturn court rulings that obstruct the democratic will on immigration—not activist judges, but elected politicians held to account by the British electorate.
Legal reform would just be the start, setting the scene for the most ambitious set of deportations ever seen. The real question is this: how can we remove all those with no legal right to be in Britain? The answer is making illegal residence impossible to sustain—as we call it, the “hostile environment”: no legal employment, no legal tenancy, no access to public services and no banking facilities. That single reform would become the backbone of our immigration enforcement, making life so incredibly uncomfortable and unsustainable that many would simply deport themselves.
Employers must face real-time right-to-work checks. The gig economy, construction, hospitality and other sectors with persistent illegal working would face regular audits. If Uber Eats, Deliveroo and the rest were found to be employing illegal migrants, they would be fined, prosecuted or even shut down. The farce of young Sudanese illegal migrant men on mopeds delivering spring rolls and pepperoni pizzas in every British suburb would end. The Government must lead by example. Every company bidding for public contracts would have to demonstrate strict compliance with immigration law before receiving any taxpayer money—environmental, social and governance regulations, but for mass deportations.
Housing enforcement would change completely. Every landlord would be required to carry out right-to-rent checks at the beginning of every tenancy. Those who knowingly rented properties to illegal migrants would face severe financial penalties, and persistent offenders could face asset seizure and prosecution. Owners of houses in multiple occupation who imposed gangs of feral illegal men on quiet British villages would be prosecuted. Public officials who knowingly placed dangerous and unvetted migrants near schools and nurseries would be sent to prison. Homelessness legislation must also be amended so that illegal migrants are no longer recycled through local authority housing systems but instead enter the immigration enforcement process. We would not house illegal migrant tramps; we would deport them. It is really that simple.
Healthcare would no longer operate as a loophole. So-called “safe surgeries” must end. Proof of lawful status must become a requirement for routine NHS access. Illegal migrants in hospitals would be reported to immigration enforcement, as they should be now. We are not evil: emergency care would be provided, but they would be deported as soon as it was medically safe for that to happen.
Government Departments would finally begin sharing data across the Home Office, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the NHS, local councils, the Department for Work and Pensions and banks. Instead of operating in silos, the Government would work as one system to identify those with no legal right to remain. The full power of the British state would be directed to implement this one policy: mass deportation. Financial enforcement would become another powerful tool. Banks would verify immigration status before accounts were opened. Existing accounts without lawful status would be frozen or closed. The hostile environment measures would force out hundreds of thousands; a concurrent programme of enforced deportations would be implemented alongside that to remove the rest.
Restore Britain proposes a major expansion of immigration enforcement, recruiting thousands of additional officers, drawing on former police officers, military veterans and experienced investigators. A specific recruitment campaign for military veterans would be implemented, drawing former soldiers into field enforcement roles. Detention capacity would be expanded dramatically, including through the use of purpose-built detention facilities capable of holding thousands awaiting removal. Commercial airlines would continue to be used where appropriate. Dedicated charter flights would become routine. Military transport aircraft would also be available where operationally necessary. Time would not be wasted.
What about cost? Britain is already paying billions: billions every year on accommodation, billions on asylum, billions on public services for illegal migrants, billions supporting people who have no legal entitlement to remain here. In the short term, ending those long-term costs would offset the expenditure required to carry out removals, with estimated annual savings of more than £12 billion once the programme was complete. Put simply, mass deportation pays for itself.
This policy is popular, cost-effective and possible. I have just one question for my fellow MPs: what are we all waiting for? This is a costed, comprehensive and legally sound plan that would, as those 720,772 British patriots demand, remove the illegal migrant population. We have outlined exactly what needs to happen, in excruciating detail. It can be done. It must be done. It will be done. I invite Members to help themselves to a “Mass Deportations” policy document on their way out. It makes glorious reading.
Critics raise a number of concerns, which deserve to be taken seriously. The first is cost. Offshore facilities can be expensive. However, the answer is not to abandon the policy, but to ensure that it is designed efficiently, with clear agreements, streamlined processing and a strong focus on rapid decisions rather than prolonged detention.
The second concern is humanitarian welfare. Nobody should be subjected to poor conditions or indefinite detention, and offshore centres should be subject to independent inspection, proper healthcare provision, legal oversight, and strict maximum time limits on processing. The objective should be swift assessment and resolution, not warehousing people for years, as they effectively are when they are in this country and unable to work. Of course, we cannot allow them to work, because that creates a further incentive and pull for more illegal migration.
The choice facing policymakers is not between offshore processing and an ideal world, but between policies that deter illegal migration and those that leave criminal gangs and smuggling networks free to operate. If implemented properly, offshore detention and processing could strengthen border security, reduce dangerous crossings, restore public confidence and save lives while maintaining high standards of humanity and the rule of law. This is a balanced approach: firm on illegal migration, fair to genuine refugees and responsible to the taxpayers who expect their Government to control their nation’s borders.