The UK government is considering plans to send failed asylum seekers to overseas "return hubs" in the western Balkans, as part of efforts to reduce net migration and ease pressure on local services.
Home Office officials have held early-stage discussions about setting up facilities in countries such as Albania, Serbia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The proposed centres would house individuals whose asylum claims have been rejected and whose appeals have been exhausted.
The scheme would differ from the previously scrapped Rwanda plan by applying only to rejected claimants rather than those awaiting decisions.
A government source said any initiative would need to be "affordable, workable and legal", and would exclude families and unaccompanied minors.
Officials believe the proposal could speed up removals, reduce costs, and support local authorities struggling with homeless failed asylum seekers.
In 2024, the UK carried out over 9,000 asylum-related returns, a 36% increase on the previous year.
The European Commission recently endorsed the concept of return hubs as an “innovative” migration solution, encouraging similar measures among member states.
However, refugee advocates have voiced concern. Enver Solomon of the Refugee Council said offshore detention was costly and ineffective, arguing that voluntary return support was more humane and successful.
Legal challenges are likely, as shown in Italy, where a similar arrangement with Albania was blocked by the courts.
Conservative shadow home secretary Chris Philp criticised Labour for abandoning the Rwanda plan and called for its reinstatement. Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey said the Channel crossing numbers were concerning but welcomed the end of the Rwanda scheme.
More than 5,000 people have crossed the Channel in small boats so far this year.
The government maintains that international cooperation is essential to address what it describes as a "shared global challenge".
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ