Illegal Immigrants: Offshore Detention and Deportation

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I beg to move,

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.

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.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

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.”

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions must be short.

[John Lamont]

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.

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont]

I am not used to having 90 minutes to speak, but I promise not to detain colleagues long. I thank all Members who took part, particularly the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), who was the petitioner, and the hon. Members for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin), for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) and for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock), my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) and the various party spokesmen.

I have been on the Petitions Committee since the last election, and it is quite telling that this petition has had, I think, the second or third highest number of signatures. I am surprised that more MPs are not participating. Is this an example of where Parliament is disconnected from what our constituents are telling us? I know that 2,500 constituents of my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) signed the petition, the second highest number in the UK. I have been at other petition debates here and there has not been enough space for all the MPs who wanted to participate. That is telling.

Part of the problem, with the greatest respect to the Minister, is that although we hear all the achievements that he thinks the Government have achieved, the reality is that people out there in society do not see or feel those achievements. They feel the pressures in their society because of the broken immigration system. In the 12 months between 1 April 2025 and 31 March 2026, 43,806 illegal arrivals took place in the UK, and that was up on the previous year. That is why our constituents feel so frustrated and why so many people signed this petition.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 737105 relating to offshore detention and deportation of illegal immigrants.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I just want to help the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters). The Minister was answering, and you walked straight across both of us—not that I should need to explain that.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

T5.   Immigration, especiallynon-EU migration, remains too high. Many of my constituents across the Scottish Borders want to see a cap on the number of people who can come into the United Kingdom. Will the Home Secretary introduce a binding cap, set by Parliament, to bring down immigration once and for all?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

Under the previous Government, we saw 2.5 million people arrive in just four years—that is one in 30 people in the country at this time. This Government have brought migration down by 82% since its peak and by 41% in the past year.

Child Sexual Offender Data

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jamie Stone]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Today, we have with us people in the Public Gallery who have been through this dreadful experience. Sadly, it leaves scars that can last a lifetime. By referring to “offenders”, this petition is focused on a person who has admitted guilt to a child sexual abuse offence or who has been found guilty of such an offence in a court of law.

Prior to this debate, I spoke to people at the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse, who pointed out that although there is understandable interest in strengthening the collection and scrutiny of data relating to offenders, such an approach taken in isolation will have but limited impact on the scale of harm they are seeking to confront in order to protect children. Data on known offenders is, by its very nature, retrospective—it looks back. It tells us where the system has already failed, but it does not help us to identify where abuse is occurring right now, unseen. In this way, it is crucial to consider that better safeguarding outcomes should, first and foremost, be driven by the identification and prevention of abuse in the first instance.

Alas, the reality is that a significant proportion of child sexual abuse never reaches the criminal justice system at all. These children are not reflected in datasets or analytical frameworks based solely on convicted offenders. It is therefore worth remembering that, although offender data has its place within a broader safeguarding landscape, it is not adequate as the central focus for protecting victims and preventing further abuse. Failure to consider that risks neglecting the hidden majority of cases and misdirecting our resources and attention.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

As a fellow Scottish MP, the hon. Member will know that, sadly, these gangs operate across all parts of the United Kingdom. Does he accept that we need consistency in the collection of data in Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland?

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

It is an independent review. I am in constant discussion with Lord Macdonald, who has requested a short extension in order to deal with the matters comprehensively. It is right that the independent review has the time it needs, but it will be brought forward very soon.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

T9. It has been reported that under the SNP, Police Scotland has written off 25,000 crimes without investigation, including shoplifting, theft and vandalism. Does the Minister agree that that is a surrender to criminals which leaves people wondering why they report crimes in the first place and shows that life in Scotland is a soft touch to criminals under the SNP?

[Sarah Jones]

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that England and Wales policing, which I am responsible for, will get the support it needs and bear down on criminals in exactly the way it should.

Firearms Licensing

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee and the manner in which he did so, in a very measured speech.

I acknowledge the deeply emotive and tragic cases that have been raised in wider debate on this issue and which are perhaps the motivation for the changes proposed by the Government. These incidents shock us all, and I know that the thoughts of everyone in the House are with those affected by gun crime. I thank the more than 400 people in the Scottish Borders, among 120,000 people across the United Kingdom, who signed the petition. I also thank the many constituents who contacted me to express their concerns about these proposals, including Paul Allison and Rob Pile, both from Hawick, Jeremy Bidie from Lilliesleaf and Mary McCallum from Lauder.

The Government’s proposal to merge sections 1 and 2 firearms licensing has caused deep concern in our rural communities. Shooting is worth £3.3 billion to the UK economy and generates 67,000 full-time jobs, many in my constituency on the Scottish Borders. The proposal would represent one of the most significant shifts affecting countryside industries in decades and, most important, it would not make people feel safer.

The UK already has one of the most effective and strictest systems of firearms licensing in the world. Between April 2024 and March 2025, only four homicide cases involved a licensed firearm—a similar number to the previous year. Sadly, in many of the cases that I am sure right hon. and hon. Members will raise today, the proposed change would not have prevented tragedy; however, it would have a significant impact on those such as farmers, land managers and pest controllers, who require a shotgun for their job. It could even affect clay pigeon shooting, which is an activity enjoyed by many who do not even consider themselves to be shooters or part of rural industry. It would also have a negative impact on gun shops—businesses whose expertise ensures that firearms are sold only to those legally permitted to possess them.

Furthermore, plans to merge sections 1 and 2 firearms licensing would place an even greater burden on our already overstretched police forces.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

Rural police forces already handle the highest concentration of firearms licensing work in the country. Does the hon. Member agree that merging sections 1 and 2 will increase administrative burdens and lengthen waiting times for law-abiding applicants? Is there not also a risk that diverting more police time to additional paperwork could reduce the focus on illegal firearms and serious organised crime, which pose the greatest threat to public safety?

[John Lamont]

The hon. Lady makes an important point, which nicely leads into my next point. Poorly resourced police forces could be overwhelmed, and might even refuse to accept new applications, which happened in Gloucestershire in 2024. That would have a significant impact on people who rely on firearms for their job and livelihood. I am afraid that this is an example of the Government not really understanding how rural communities work.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with the concerns raised by the Highbridge and Huntspill Wildfowling Association in my constituency that aligning these licences will put an undue burden on shotgun owners and suppliers, and put increased pressure on our rural communities?

[John Lamont]

That is absolutely right. I do not know the club in question, but that is the same point that many of my constituents and others have made as part of the debate on this proposal.

If the Government wish to improve public safety, I encourage them to accept the proposal for mandatory medical markers, which is backed by organisations such as BASC. They would ensure that medical concerns are identified as they arise, rather than waiting for licence renewal. That proposal has cross-party and industry support, yet the Government have rejected it. However well intentioned, the Government’s proposals would not improve public safety, but would simply harm our rural communities and the hundreds of thousands of people who use shotguns lawfully.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making some important points. We must have an eye, as the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) said, for the overall lethality of the population of firearms. Will my hon. Friend reflect on whether we are in a “careful what you wish for” situation? I am a shotgun certificate holder and an owner of a shotgun. If I am forced to go through the procedure to effectively get a firearms licence, I am much more likely to acquire a firearm, so although the number of shotguns out there might fall, the number of rifles, and therefore the overall lethality of the population of firearms, might actually rise.

[John Lamont]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is important that the Government and the civil servants supporting them consider the wider impacts of these changes if they are implemented. Firearms legislation has been crucial to keeping people safe and there are practical, workable measures that the Government could take to improve it, but this proposal is not one of them. It will make it harder for those who work in our rural communities to do their jobs. The Government must listen to the evidence, to those who have responded to the consultation and to the Members across the Chamber. I urge them to abandon these plans because they will not work and they will severely impact jobs, the economy and our rural way of life.

Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry

John Lamont Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me pay tribute to my hon. Friend and the work that he has done on taxi regulation. I will happily ensure that we keep discussing with him the measures that we are bringing forward. Let me also provide him with the reassurance that we are working closely with our colleagues in the Department for Transport to ensure that the legislation in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill is fit for purpose and does exactly what he and I would want it to do.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The Scottish Government have announced a review of the grooming gangs evidence in Scotland, but that falls short of a full inquiry and disappoints many of the victims. I have asked for this before. Please will this UK Government extend their inquiry to the whole of the UK so that the victims of these appalling crimes get the justice they deserve? Grooming gangs operate in all parts of the UK; so should this inquiry.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I hear the force with which the point is made. I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Member and my colleagues from Scotland have said on how grooming gangs do not respect boundaries. That is a point that I know the inquiry chair and panel will take on board. Many of the public authorities that have failed children sit within devolved Departments. This is necessarily and primarily an England and Wales inquiry, but I expect there to be discussions with colleagues in the Scottish Government to ensure that all the lessons are learned across the whole of the United Kingdom. In the end, these are all our children and we all have a responsibility to keep them safe.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the hon. Member for his question, and of course we will be just as zealous with those receiving refunds.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

10. Whether she has made an assessment of the potential merits of extending the remit of the national statutory inquiry into grooming gangs to include Scotland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

The national inquiry into group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse will mirror the Casey audit, and therefore cover England and Wales. That said, all parts of the UK must work together to protect children and bring perpetrators to justice. We have committed to sharing relevant findings with devolved Administrations and are considering how the inquiry’s work may interact with devolved responsibilities in Scotland, including cross-area trafficking concerns.

[John Lamont]

Last week, brave grooming-gang survivor Fiona Goddard spoke of how she was trafficked to Scotland as a vulnerable teenager. As she rightly said, the idea that this issue stops at the border is “insane”. Despite clear evidence from victims about grooming gangs operating in Scotland, the SNP Government in Edinburgh still refuse to hold an inquiry. [Interruption.] Will the Minister please listen to victims and campaigners and extend the national inquiry to Scotland, so that we can ensure that young girls and teenagers are not treated in this way again?

[Jess Phillips]

I thank the hon. Gentleman—others are stating from a sedentary position that the SNP Government in Scotland have said something different. However, any information can be given to the inquiry. In the example that the hon. Gentleman gave, where people are trafficked into Scotland, that evidence can be given to the inquiry. But police, justice, education, children’s services and health are all devolved, which is different to the system in England and Wales, where just policing and justice are devolved. We have to ensure that we are working within frameworks where the recommendations can be fully taken, but we will work with all nations to make sure that the findings make things better in the future.

Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

John Lamont Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words, and I will certainly take that opportunity, because I have seen this with my own eyes in cases in which I have been involved. People have said, “Oh, it might cause trouble.” That was not stopping them doing it, but they would not have even mentioned it to me in other circumstances.

What we have to do, and what we all owe to the victims of these crimes, is to call it what it is, but also not to use our own political agendas in relation to their very delicate and harmed lives, whatever form that takes. We do not want a backlash causing the police to go on thinking, “Oh gosh, this is going to open a can of worms.” We must all act responsibly in respect of these issues. However, I have definitely seen this, and it should never have been allowed to happen.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I recently met Dr Joanna Kerr, an extremely brave survivor of child sexual exploitation and abuse in Scotland. As it stands, the national inquiry will not cover Scotland, and the Scottish National party Government will not launch their own. I ask the Minister again: will she commit herself to extending the national inquiry to cover all parts of the United Kingdom including Scotland, or do victims like Joanna not deserve justice?

[Jess Phillips]

It is not that victims like Joanna do not deserve justice; they absolutely do deserve justice. I do not know about Joanna’s case, but I should be more than happy to meet her and talk to her about it. The body that must hold a national inquiry into events in Scotland is a body in the devolved Government, because both policing and child protection are devolved issues. However, as I said to one of my hon. Friends earlier, I am more than happy to look into this. People who are Scottish, or who live in Scotland now, and have been abused in an area covered by the inquiry will absolutely be able to take part.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I will certainly join my hon. Friend in thanking shop workers in her constituency and right across the country, who were often on the frontline during the covid pandemic. Sadly, during that period and since then, they have seen a disgraceful increase in assaults and abuse. We cannot stand for that, which is why we are not only introducing stronger neighbourhood policing—particularly in town centres—but bringing in the new law on assaults against shop workers as part of the Crime and Policing Bill. What a shame the Conservative party voted against it.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

14. Whether she has had discussions with the Scottish Government on the national inquiry into grooming gangs.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

As the hon. Member will be aware, child protection and policing are devolved to the Scottish Government. We regularly engage with them on a range of issues, including the national inquiry into group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse that was announced by the Government. On 26 June, officials met to discuss the Government’s approach to the national inquiry, its remit and the expectation that relevant findings and lessons learned will be shared with the devolved Administrations, and we will continue to discuss this matter with our Scottish counterparts to ensure a comprehensive UK-wide response.

[John Lamont]

Senior Scottish advocate Sandra Brown has said that grooming gangs could be operating in every town and city in Scotland. This scandal affects the whole of the United Kingdom, so when will the Government extend the grooming gangs inquiry to Scotland? Surely all victims across all parts of the United Kingdom deserve justice.

[Jess Phillips]

Of course. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but he should take up that issue with the Scottish Government, as it is devolved. As I have said, we will make sure that all learning is passed on to the devolved Administrations.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

When people arrive and claim to be children, there are tests at the border to check whether we think they are children. If they are accepted as children, they are put into local authority care, so they should not be in asylum accommodation at all. If they are seen to be adults and end up in asylum accommodation, they can always make an appeal to the local authority that they are in and undergo what is known as a Merton age assessment test, which will decide on their age once and for all.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

T2. On Saturday, 1,200 illegal migrants poured into the United Kingdom by small boat. Many gave spurious reasons to stay here, so when will the Government repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 for immigration cases and take back control of our borders?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

To tackle illegal migration, we must work across borders in co-operation with other jurisdictions. Were we to leave the European convention on human rights, we could not work with those that sign up to it.