Britain’s New Asylum Plan? Out of Sight, Out of Mind

A group of people thought to be migrants are brought in to Dover, Kent, from a Border Force vessel (Gareth Fuller/PA)

The UK’s migration strategy seems to be based less on solving the asylum backlog and more on exporting it. In the coming months, Britain could begin offshoring failed asylum seekers to so-called “return hubs” in the Balkans, under plans already gaining praise from ministers. We know the government has form for pursuing costly yet unsuccessful immigration strategies. It’s the sort of policy that sounds pragmatic in a ministerial press release, but risks becoming either an international headache or another expensive legal cul-de-sac.

The idea, as floated by the Home Office, is that migrants who have exhausted all legal avenues to remain in the UK would be sent to processing centres abroad, most likely in Albania, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, or North Macedonia, before being repatriated to their country of origin. In theory, these return hubs would offer shelter, legal representation, and basic rights to migrants while they await deportation. In practice, they would serve as a halfway house: not detained, not free, and not on UK soil. If all this sounds familiar, you’d be correct! The previous Conservative government attempted to implement a plan to process all asylum seekers in Rwanda, and this is an effective reincarnation of that, albeit with a more diplomatic wrapping.

This time around, ministers are leaning heavily on the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for cover. And in their defence, they’ve had more success than the last government. In March Home Secretary Yvette Cooper held talks with Filippo Grandi, the head of UNHCR, who acknowledged that return hubs could be compatible with international law. That is providing they guarantee humane conditions, legal safeguards, and access to fair procedures. It’s a tentative endorsement that reads well in official briefings. It’s the sort of cautious green light that sounds great at a press briefing, but rests on conditions so stringent it could unravel at the first legal challenge. If any of those standards aren’t met, we can expect the UNHCR’s support to be rescinded.

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper met the UN high Commissioner for refugees, Filippo Grandi, last month (PA)

So, what’s changed since the Rwanda debate that cost the government over £700m? For starters, there’s a more legally coherent narrative. Rather than attempting to permanently ship asylum seekers to a far-off country deemed “safe,” the Labour government is proposing temporary holding centres where people already refused asylum in the UK can await removal to their actual countries of origin. It’s a softer approach that doesn’t sound quite as brutal as shipping all asylum seekers to Rwanda. Those sent to these “return hubs” have already been denied UK asylum. There’s no permanent offshoring and no reclassification of refugee rights, but it still hinges on the premise that Britain can process its migration challenges by physically removing them.

According to ministers, the case for these “return hubs” is straightforward. Channel crossings are up 42% this year alone, and a visible deterrent is urgently needed. The “return hubs,” they argue, will send a message that failed claimants can no longer expect to vanish into the system or linger for years in legal limbo. Immigration lawyers, meanwhile, would be freed up to focus on complex claims with a real chance of success. In theory, everyone wins.

Except those being sent to these “return hubs.” Critics have wasted no time in calling the scheme ethically shaky and practically flimsy. We already know how the last scheme of this nature ended, is this something we want to pursue again? The Refugee Council has branded the plan “unworkable,” warning that the Western Balkans, hardly models of asylum infrastructure, will struggle to provide adequate safeguards.

Even with UN oversight, questions remain about who would monitor these hubs, who would run them, and whether migrants transferred there would receive meaningful access to appeals. Outsourcing has become common with justice and immigration schemes, and there are fears that the government could use an arms-length process of outsourcing to absolve themselves of responsibility for those in the system.

The fear is Britain could end up warehousing vulnerable people in under-resourced centres on the far edge of Europe, with limited legal recourse and no real path forward.

The legal risks are also immense. Human rights lawyers are quick to remind the government that any mistreatment or legislative flaw could open the possibility of lawsuits back in Britain. If a person in a “return hub” is mistreated or stranded, the courts may rule that the UK remains responsible, regardless of whether the individual is overseas. Like the Rwanda scheme, this new plan could collapse under its own weight.

And we haven’t even mentioned the cost yet. The previous government’s Rwanda deal clocked in at an eye-watering £144,000 per migrant, an incredible amount for a scheme that never successfully deported a single person. This plan is still likely to cost a pretty penny. Host countries will expect generous support, with the UK having to foot the bill for infrastructure, security, legal staffing, and health services. If the goal is to save taxpayers money and relieve pressure on the UK’s overloaded asylum system, is shipping people overseas and running entire parallel processing centres the most efficient route?

Still, Labour seems committed. A Western Balkans summit is pencilled in for the autumn, and Yvette Cooper’s office hopes to begin pilot operations before the end of the year. If deals are signed and standards are met, the plan may well proceed. However, the closer it comes to implementation, the more scrutiny it will attract. If recent history teaches us anything, it’s that immigration policy dressed up as logistics often unravels into politics. And politics, especially on asylum, tends to be far messier than even the most meticulous return hub.