Alexander Horne

Starmer shouldn’t rush to copy Meloni’s Albania migrant plan

Giorgia Meloni welcomes Keir Starmer in Rome (Credit: Getty images)

One of the first things Keir Starmer did on entering Downing Street in July was to abandon the previous government’s Rwanda asylum partnership. The Prime Minister said Rishi Sunak’s flagship scheme was a costly gimmick. But it now appears the PM is considering an asylum processing scheme of his own, which could see migrants removed to Albania. Speaking ahead of a visit to Rome today to meet with the Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni, Starmer said he was ‘interested’ to see how Italy’s own migrant processing scheme with Albania might work. He revealed he had already had some discussions with Meloni on how the two can ‘work together on irregular migration’.

Meloni signed a deal with Albania last year, which allows Italy to send some asylum seekers to that country to have their claims processed. The success of this arrangement has yet to be tested (as it has not been fully implemented), but Meloni is said to have more than halved crossings to Italy this year.

The cost of the Albania scheme has yet to be disclosed

Starmer faces significant pressure to stop small boat crossings. More than 23,000 people are said to have crossed the Channel this year and eight people died over the weekend trying to make the journey. Could an arrangement with Albania prove more successful that the previous government’s hapless (not to mention prohibitively expensive) Rwanda scheme?

The biggest challenge to the Rwanda deal was always likely to come from the courts. A hearing had already been scheduled at the High Court when Starmer’s Tory predecessor Rishi Sunak called his ill-fated election. Even if Sunak had won a case in the domestic courts, he would still have faced a showdown at the European Court of Human Rights. Given the initial judgment of the Supreme Court, which concluded that Rwanda was not a safe place to send asylum seekers, it was hard to envisage a successful outcome in Strasbourg.

It had been suggested that Sunak’s Rwanda deal was, in part, put in place to establish a dividing line with Labour and potentially set up a pre-election clash with the Strasbourg court. This did not work on either front. The electorate did not trust Sunak’s claims on immigration and he was also forced to admit that the government had no plans to deport anyone to Rwanda ahead of the election, despite having prioritised contentious emergency legislation designed to allow removals to take place. In truth, it never felt as though the scheme was a practical way to ‘stop the boats’.

By contrast, Meloni’s Albania deal is far more pragmatic than the Rwanda scheme and there are some significant differences. First, only asylum seekers who come from countries that Italy deems safe will be processed in Albania and the country would only be used for the processing of claims – those whose claims are successful would not be required to remain there. Second, Albania is a member of the Council of Europe and is bound by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Therefore, it could not be argued that outsourcing claims to Albania would act as a means of circumventing legitimate claims under the ECHR.

When the scheme was announced, it was reported that, under the agreement, approximately 3,000 people a month who attempt to reach Italy by sea would be detained in two processing centres near the Albanian north-western port of Shengjin while their asylum claims were examined. These centres would be paid for and staffed by the Italian government and would operate under Italian law. Outside security would be provided by the Albanian government.

It has also been noted that the cost of the Albania scheme has yet to be disclosed. Estimates in the Italian press put the figure at around €650 million (£548 million) between 2024 and 2028. Thus far, no migrants have been sent to Albania and it has been suggested that none are expected to arrive until later in the autumn.

The UK government already has two agreements in place with Albania. The first is an agreement that Albania will take back its own citizens who are found in breach of the UK’s immigration rules. The second is an arrangement to return Albanian prisoners in British jails to their home country (in exchange for UK support to help modernise the Albanian prison system). However, it is worth noting that any new scheme with Albania would not be without controversy and that the country is not without problems.

Oxford University’s migration observatory reported that in 2022 16,000 Albanian nationals applied for asylum in the UK, making up 16 per cent of all asylum claimants that year. Many of these claimants arrived on small boats. Between 2021 and 2022 a large proportion of them (48 per cent) were successful – despite the Home Office’s assessment that Albania is a ‘safe and prosperous country’. Most of the successful claims were made by women. The migration observatory notes that in 2022, ‘12 per cent of Albanian citizens arriving via small boat were referred to the UK’s modern slavery system’.

Unsurprisingly, the Italian-Albanian deal has already been condemned by human rights organisations. They are concerned that the plan could result in asylum seekers being detained in camps in Albania, leading to arbitrary detention. Amnesty has also raised concerns about conditions in Albania for LGTB+ people and about violence against women and girls.

Whether the Albania scheme works in practice remains to be seen. Critics will argue that it is simply another attempt to dissuade migrants from attempting to come to Europe, for fear of ending up detained in a processing centre in one of the continent’s poorest countries.

It is also likely that court cases will be taken by vulnerable asylum seekers arguing that Albania is not a safe country for them. Giorgia Meloni has already acknowledged that pregnant women, minors and other vulnerable people will not be sent there. Moreover, it is not entirely clear what will happen to failed asylum seekers under the scheme. It has recently been suggested that even those whose asylum request is refused will be taken back to Italy and put in holding centres until they can be repatriated.

Starmer would be well advised to see how the arrangement works in practice before he commits any public money to another ambitious asylum outsourcing scheme. Yet the mere fact that he may be considering such an idea proves that the issue of illegal immigration remains both a pressingly high priority and one which will not easily be resolved.

Comments