New petition calls for migrants to be detained on ‘remote UK islands’
Migrants are crossing to the UK from France in boats across the English Channel (Image: Getty)
A new petition calling for asylum seekers and foreign national offenders to be detained on remote UK islands has reignited a fierce political debate over Britain’s asylum system, the cost of accommodation and the Government’s ability to control the country’s borders.
The petition, created by Darren Chandler on September 3, calls for asylum seekers and foreign nationals convicted of crimes to be housed away from the general population while their cases are processed.
Its supporters argue that such a system could improve public safety and reduce the cost of accommodating asylum seekers in communities across Britain.
However, the proposal is not Government policy. It remains an e-petition submitted through the official UK Parliament petitions system, meaning its immediate effect is to trigger a Government response rather than introduce a change in immigration law.
The petition has already passed the 10,000-signature threshold required for a Government response. The official Parliament website currently lists it as open and says it will remain available for signatures until March 3, 2027. A total of 100,000 signatures would be required for the petition to be considered for debate in Parliament.
Petition demands offshore accommodation
The document proposes that asylum seekers should be housed on remote British islands while their claims are considered.
It also extends the proposal to foreign nationals who have committed crimes, although asylum seekers and foreign national offenders are dealt with under different areas of law.
The petition argues that keeping people away from established communities could reduce pressure on local services and limit the costs associated with dispersal accommodation.
Its wording also refers to the European Convention on Human Rights and argues that, where deportation is prevented, individuals should remain in the proposed offshore system until they can legally be returned.
That is the petitioner’s argument, rather than an existing Government rule.
The distinction is important because the UK’s asylum and immigration system already contains legal powers to detain certain people in particular circumstances. Immigration detention can be used, for example, where removal is being pursued, but the law does not provide an unlimited power to detain someone simply because they are an asylum seeker.
Under current guidance, immigration detention must have a lawful purpose and cannot continue indefinitely. Where detention is being used to facilitate removal, there must be a realistic prospect that removal can take place within a reasonable period.
That creates one of the biggest legal questions surrounding any proposal for permanent offshore detention.
The Government will have to respond
The petition crossed the 10,000-signature threshold shortly after it was published, meaning the Government has committed to responding.
That does not mean ministers have agreed with the proposal.
The parliamentary petitions system is designed to allow members of the public to raise issues directly with Government. Once a petition reaches 10,000 signatures, the relevant Government department is required to respond. At 100,000 signatures, it becomes eligible for consideration for debate in Parliament.
The current petition therefore provides a snapshot of public pressure surrounding immigration rather than evidence that ministers are preparing to establish an offshore detention network.
It also comes at a politically sensitive time.
The Government has been attempting to reduce its reliance on hotels and move asylum accommodation towards large, managed sites, while simultaneously increasing efforts to process claims and remove people who have no legal basis to remain in the UK.
The Home Office currently uses former military sites and other large locations as asylum accommodation, with official guidance covering sites such as former Ministry of Defence facilities.
The distinction between those facilities and detention is significant.
Accommodation does not automatically mean detention.
People housed in non-detained asylum accommodation are generally not imprisoned and remain subject to the normal asylum process.
Small boats keep immigration at the centre of politics
The petition comes as Channel crossings continue to generate political pressure.
Home Office figures updated on October 7 show that 91 people arrived in the UK in small boats on October 2, followed by 164 on October 3, 418 on October 4, 609 on October 5 and 338 on October 6.
The figures are provisional and can be revised.
The numbers have made small-boat crossings one of the most politically visible aspects of Britain’s immigration debate.
Supporters of tougher measures argue that the Government must demonstrate that crossing the Channel illegally will not automatically result in long-term accommodation within British communities.
Opponents of offshore detention argue that asylum claims must be assessed individually and that people fleeing persecution or serious harm cannot simply be treated as criminals because they arrived without prior permission.
The legal position is more complicated than either political slogan suggests.
The House of Commons Library has previously noted that most people arriving by small boat claim asylum. Under the Refugee Convention framework reflected in UK law, someone who claims asylum generally cannot simply be returned to a country where they would face persecution before their claim has been resolved.
That means a policy designed around immediate removal would still have to account for asylum claims, appeals and legal safeguards.
What would “remote islands” actually mean?
One of the unanswered questions is precisely what the petition means by a “remote UK island”.
Britain has numerous islands, but transforming an isolated location into a secure immigration facility would require considerably more than accommodation blocks.
There would need to be security, medical facilities, transport links, food supplies, legal access, immigration officials, interpreters and arrangements for vulnerable people.
Asylum applicants would also need access to lawyers and a functioning process through which their claims could be assessed and challenged.
The more isolated the proposed location, the greater those logistical requirements could become.
A facility far from mainland Britain might reduce the immediate interaction between asylum accommodation and local communities, but it would not eliminate the cost of running the system.
Instead, some costs could simply move from hotels and dispersed housing to transport, security, staffing and infrastructure.
That is why claims that offshore accommodation would automatically “reduce the taxpayer burden” would need to be tested against detailed costings.
Britain has considered offshore processing before
The concept itself is not entirely new.
Previous governments have considered models in which asylum claims could be processed away from the UK mainland.
The UK’s 2021 New Plan for Immigration included proposals that would have allowed the possibility of offshore asylum processing, subject to international obligations. The policy envisaged reception centres and processing arrangements intended to reduce reliance on hotels and speed up decisions.
The most prominent recent example was the former Rwanda policy, under which the UK sought to send certain asylum seekers to Rwanda for their claims to be processed there.
That policy became the subject of extensive legal and political controversy before the subsequent Government abandoned it.
A remote UK island proposal would be materially different because the territory would remain under British jurisdiction.
But that does not remove the legal questions.
If people are detained, the Government would still need lawful authority for detention, appropriate review mechanisms and safeguards concerning individual rights.
The European Convention is another flashpoint
The petition specifically argues that people should remain offshore if the European Convention on Human Rights prevents deportation.
But the ECHR does not simply operate as a blanket prohibition on deportation.
The Convention contains a number of rights that can affect whether an individual can lawfully be removed in particular circumstances.
For example, Article 3 prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. Article 5 protects liberty and restricts when a person can lawfully be detained.
The UK remains a party to the ECHR and gives effect to it domestically through the Human Rights Act 1998.
Government guidance also makes clear that immigration detention must comply with Article 5 and domestic case law.
A person cannot lawfully be detained simply because ministers want them kept away from the public. The detention must fall within a lawful purpose and remain reasonable in duration.
That would be a major consideration for any future offshore detention proposal.
Asylum accommodation is already changing
The political argument over remote islands is also taking place against a backdrop of significant changes to the asylum accommodation system.
The Government has been moving away from hotel accommodation and towards large sites, including former military facilities.
Official guidance says these sites are intended to provide temporary accommodation for asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute. It also states that the Government wants to move away from using hotels and towards more managed accommodation.
The Home Office’s current allocation policy includes former military sites and vessels within the category of non-detained asylum accommodation.
The policy states that accommodation is generally allocated on a “no choice basis”, with officials considering the individual’s circumstances and suitability when deciding where accommodation can be provided.
That approach already reflects one of the arguments made by supporters of larger, more centralised facilities: keeping accommodation away from ordinary housing markets can reduce the immediate pressure on individual towns and cities.
But it remains different from detention.
Taxpayer costs are becoming a central issue
The financial argument is another major reason why the petition has attracted attention.
The UK has spent substantial sums providing accommodation and support to asylum seekers whose claims are still being processed.
The Commons Library reported that, as of March 2026, around 94,000 asylum seekers were in asylum accommodation, including approximately 21,000 in hotels.
The Government has since introduced measures intended to change the way asylum support operates.
In March 2026, ministers announced legislation to remove accommodation and financial support from asylum seekers who illegally work, can support themselves financially or have broken the law, subject to the new legal framework.
In June, the Government also announced plans for asylum seekers who can afford to contribute towards accommodation and support costs to repay a flat-rate amount.
These measures demonstrate that ministers are already attempting to reduce or control the financial burden associated with asylum support.
The new petition goes further by proposing a geographically separate model.
Gosport tensions highlight the pressure on local communities
The petition has also appeared amid growing tensions in some coastal communities where asylum seekers arriving by boat are brought ashore.
Gosport recently became the scene of a significant police operation following a small-boat arrival.
Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary said around 350 people gathered near Haslar Road following the arrival of people brought ashore by partner agencies.
Police said twelve people were arrested during the incident.
Officers used powers under the Public Order Act and other legislation to manage the protest, while partner agencies worked to safely process those brought ashore. Police said a small number of officers were treated for injuries but nobody at the scene suffered serious injury.
The following day, police confirmed that one man, Jamie Lee Bennett, aged 38, had been charged with failing to comply with a prohibited assembly direction. He was bailed to appear at Portsmouth Magistrates’ Court on November 26. Other people arrested during the incident remained under investigation.
The episode illustrates how immigration policy can quickly become a local public-order issue when asylum arrivals take place in highly visible locations.
It also underlines the importance of distinguishing peaceful protest from criminal behaviour.
Police said their operation was intended both to facilitate peaceful protest and to ensure the safety of local communities and partner agencies.
The petition is likely to remain politically controversial
The proposal for remote-island detention has supporters who see physical separation from the mainland as a way of improving border control and reducing pressure on communities.
Critics are likely to focus on the legal, financial and humanitarian implications.
The biggest question is whether an offshore system would actually be cheaper and more effective once all the necessary infrastructure was included.
Another issue is whether the system would speed up asylum decisions or simply move the existing backlog somewhere else.
The Commons Library previously reported that tens of thousands of asylum claims can remain unresolved for lengthy periods, with both initial decisions and appeals contributing to delays.
If processing remains slow, an offshore centre could eventually become a long-term accommodation system rather than a temporary processing facility.
That would fundamentally change the economics and practical operation of the proposal.
The 100,000-signature threshold will be the next test
For now, the petition’s next significant milestone is 100,000 signatures.
If it reaches that figure, the issue will be considered for debate in Parliament, although the threshold does not guarantee that MPs will support the proposal.
The Government’s response to the 10,000-signature threshold will provide an earlier indication of ministers’ position.
It could explain whether the Government believes existing accommodation reforms are sufficient, whether further centralised facilities are being considered and how ministers view the proposal’s compatibility with immigration law and international obligations.
For the petition’s supporters, the central argument is straightforward: asylum seekers should not be accommodated in ordinary communities while claims are being processed if an alternative can protect the public and reduce costs.
For the Government, the challenge is more complex.
It must balance border enforcement, the processing of asylum claims, the removal of people with no right to remain, public spending, local community pressures and the legal rights of people seeking protection.
The latest Channel figures ensure that the political pressure is unlikely to disappear soon.
But whether the idea of remote-island detention moves beyond a public petition will depend on questions that cannot be answered by signatures alone: cost, capacity, legality, operational feasibility and the ability to process cases quickly.
For now, the proposal remains exactly what the Parliament website records it as being — an open public petition.
It has succeeded in forcing a Government response.
Whether it can force a wider parliamentary debate will depend on whether it can attract the 100,000 signatures required before it closes on March 3, 2027.