Yesterday, following the publication of Labour’s immigration white paper, Sir Keir Starmer tried to pull a rabbit out of the hat by announcing what he described as ‘return hubs’ for failed asylum seekers.
On a visit to Albania to discuss measures to crack down on organised crime and illegal immigration, Starmer said he was in talks with a number of countries about the idea and that he saw return hubs as ‘a really important innovation’.
It is hard to see Starmer’s ‘return hubs’ announcement as anything but an embarrassment
Unfortunately, he was left like a stage conjuror with a malfunctioning prop when his host – the Albanian PM, Edi Rama – immediately discounted the idea of Albania hosting any such project. It is hard to see the announcement as anything but an embarrassment.
Few will be surprised that Starmer is finding the question of asylum and immigration no less of a thorny issue than his Conservative predecessors. The underlying issues remain the same and there are few obvious solutions.
Starmer’s proposals for asylum and immigration reform currently seem somewhat half-baked. Attacked by critics as ‘Reform lite’, the government’s white paper offered a loose promise to clarify rules around Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to family life) in the hope that judges allow fewer applications based on ‘exceptional circumstances’. Also announced were stronger enforcement powers and tougher action against foreign offenders. We have heard much of this before.
The PM’s new announcement of return hubs seems somewhat premature. He is currently not even able to announce which countries might host failed asylum seekers; how many people might be removed; what it might all cost; and whether the result would be large numbers of individuals being detained indefinitely in Eastern Europe at taxpayer expense.
The idea of return hubs is hardly a new one. However, it is important to note that Starmer’s proposal is very different to the previous government’s Rwanda scheme. In particular, it would only apply to people refused asylum with no further routes to appeal.
The idea is apparently aimed at failed asylum seekers using ‘stalling tactics’ to prevent their removal. The BBC has reported that proposed hubs are likely to be situated in Balkan countries such as Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Such a policy may have some limited effect on the government’s ability to remove illegal migrants. But drilling down into the practicalities, it seems unlikely to have a major impact. First, it will only apply to those whose asylum applications have failed – yet it appears from Home Office data that the majority of irregular entrants to the United Kingdom between 2018-2024 were either granted asylum or some other form of leave to remain.
Second, the only effective way to ensure that failed asylum seekers do not delay their removal (by way of further appeals) is to ensure that their removal is ordered judicially at the same time that their asylum claim is rejected. They would then need to be removed from the country swiftly. There is no reason this could not be done, but the Home Office has not exactly proved itself effective in this regard in the past.
Finally, to secure such a scheme against domestic legal challenge, it would probably have to be established by primary legislation – which would obviously delay its implementation.
Legally, removing failed asylum seekers to countries which are members of the Council of Europe (and the ECHR system) is likely to be somewhat more straightforward than removing people to Rwanda. It is worth recalling that when the Supreme Court made its ruling against the Rwanda scheme in November 2023, it did not say that it was unlawful to outsource the asylum process. Rather it observed that Rwanda was not, at that time, a country to which it was safe to send asylum seekers.
The idea of outsourcing asylum is also becoming more mainstream. Both the EU and the UN Refugee Agency have endorsed the idea of establishing some form of return hubs – although Italy’s asylum deal with Albania, which is based on this model, has been held up by legal challenges which are now due to be determined at the European Court of Justice.
Starmer’s plan seems more pragmatic and less performative than the impractical and extortionately expensive Rwanda scheme. Whether he can find any countries willing to accept large number of individuals who might be eligible for removal is another question though.
In order to win any credit with the public, Starmer will have to demonstrate that the idea of introducing return hubs is a practical, effective and affordable innovation, rather than simply a sleight of hand. When it comes to the asylum system, the electorate has heard far too many excuses already.
Comments