---

E-petition relating to offshore detention and deportation of illegal immigrants

Online petition 737105 asks the government to “establish offshore detention facilities for individuals who enter the UK illegally, to process them and arrange their deportation”. It argues that this would serve as a deterrent, compared to housing people in hotels and other temporary accommodation in the UK.

The petition ran for six months and closed in March 2026. It received 720,772 signatures.

1. Background

From March 2025 to March 2026, almost 44,000 people were found to have arrived in the UK illegally (others may have arrived without being detected). 90% of these detected arrivals were by small boat across the English Channel.

If those arriving without authorisation did not claim asylum, there would not usually be a legal barrier to the government immediately removing them to their home country. But most do claim asylum. Of the people arriving by small boat from 2018 to 2025, 95% lodged an asylum claim.

Under UK law, which reflects the United Nations Refugee Convention, someone who claims asylum cannot be sent back to their home country until their claim is resolved. That is because the basis of an asylum claim is fear of persecution or serious harm at home.

Asylum claims can take time to resolve. At the end of March 2026, around 10,700 cases had been waiting for more than 12 months for an initial decision from the Home Office. People refused asylum by the Home Office usually have the right to appeal, but a backlog of appeals means that it takes over a year on average for a decision from a judge.

People waiting for an initial or appeal decision on an asylum case are not generally allowed to work. They are eligible for accommodation and a subsistence payment if they would otherwise be destitute. The standard subsistence payment is currently £49.18 per person per week.

As noted by the petition, a shortage of standard ‘dispersal’ accommodation has led to hotels being used to house asylum seekers. As of March 2026, there were 21,000 asylum seekers in hotels, out of 94,000 people in asylum accommodation overall.

If the person’s asylum claim is granted – they secure refugee status or another type of residence permit – they are given permission to live in the UK with the right to work and access to the welfare system. If the claim is refused, the government can then try to remove them to their home country.

2. Offshore processing

Offshore processing of asylum seekers could take various forms:

• People claiming asylum could be sent back to a ‘safe third country’ which they passed through, and expected to enter the asylum system there. The UK’s ‘one in, one out’ deal France works on this model, as did past arrangements within the EU.
• People claiming asylum could be sent to a safe third country with which they have no connection, and expected to enter the asylum system there. The Conservative government’s deal with Rwanda (2022-2024) was intended to work on this model.
• People claiming asylum could be sent to a safe third country with which they have no connection, but allowed to re-enter if the asylum claim were to succeed. Italy’s 2023 agreement with Albania was in part intended to work on this model.
• People who are refused asylum and who cannot easily be sent back to their home country could be sent to a third country instead. This is the idea of ‘return hubs’. The Labour government has said that it is “exploring the use of return hubs for failed asylum seekers with a number of countries”.

Return hub type arrangements could also apply to people who never claimed asylum. The US government has made arrangements with multiple countries which do not necessarily relate to failed asylum seekers.

All types of offshore processing realistically require the agreement of the receiving country or territory. A possible exception is the use of British Overseas Territories, over which the UK has unlimited power to legislate as a matter of constitutional principle. The UK has considered sending asylum seekers to the Ascension Island oversea territory in the past.

3. International examples

3.1 Australia to Nauru/Papua New Guinea

The Australian government’s policy is that “any person entering Australia by boat without a valid visa will be returned or taken to a regional processing country for protection [asylum] claims assessment. Unauthorised maritime arrivals will not settle in Australia”.

In relation to offshore processing, the following summary is based on a January 2024 briefing (PDF) from the US equivalent of the House of Commons Library.

Offshore processing is authorised under the Migration Act 1958. The statute makes clear that the “unauthorised maritime arrivals” it is aimed at includes people to whom Australia may have obligations under the UN Refugee Convention (asylum seekers and refugees). Such a person may be taken to a country that has been legally designated for regional processing. In practice this requires the agreement of that country.

Regional processing was first established in 2001. Nauru and Papua New Guinea agreed to accept people deemed to be unauthorised maritime arrivals by Australia and process their claims for asylum. Between late 2001 and early 2008, around 1,600 asylum seekers were sent to Nauru or Manus Island in Papua New Guinea. This was known as the Pacific Solution. In this phase, people found to be refugees were eligible for resettlement to Australia (although a minority went to other countries).

The number of boats attempting to arrive in Australia fell sharply from 2002. Offshore processing was discontinued in 2008. But boats began to arrive again from 2009 onwards, and Australia renewed offshore processing in both countries in August 2012. From July 2013, the policy was that people found to be refugees would not be eligible for resettlement to Australia (although many were brought to Australia for medical reasons).

Between 2012 and 2014, over 4,000 people were transferred for offshore processing. Boat arrivals fell from 2014. No transfers offshore were undertaken between 2014 and 2023 and the arrangement with Papua New Guinea has been terminated. But Nauru has agreed to maintain an “enduring regional processing capacity” (in other words, an “empty detention centre”). It has since been reported that relatively small numbers of people were transferred to Nauru in 2024.

The scheme regularly cost over AUS $1 billion per year (PDF), the equivalent of £500 million per year.

Offshore processing has also incurred a considerable human cost. The Kaldor Centre at the University of New South Wales notes in an August 2021 briefing that “the profoundly destructive effect of offshore processing on the physical and mental health of people subject to it has been consistently and extensively documented”. It cites reports of young children attempting suicide and exhibiting severe psychiatric illness.

Public health researchers have found that

…rates of self-harm among asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island were 216 and 45 times higher than the general Australian population rates of hospital-treated self-harm, respectively. Importantly, rates of self-harm among asylum seekers on Nauru were also 52 times higher than rates of self-harm among asylum seekers living in community-based arrangements (largely on bridging visas) in Australia.

There is significant disagreement on whether the policy was successful in deterring unauthorised maritime travel to Australia. This is epitomised in the conflicting evidence given to the UK Nationality and Borders Bill committee in 2021 by George Brandis (representing the Australian government) and the rebuttal presented by the Kaldor Centre (reflecting the views of other academics and human rights organisations).

Broadly speaking, the official Australian view is that offshore processing helps deter unauthorised migration, although its effect cannot be untangled from other measures such as boat turnarounds. The academic / NGO view is that offshore processing is completely ineffective and that boat turnarounds are the effective measure. There does appear to be agreement that offshore processing alone is not necessarily a sufficient measure.

3.2 Italy to Albania

The Italian government reached an agreement with its Albanian counterpart in November 2023 for the construction of two migrant processing centres operating under Italian jurisdiction. The Albanian centres would process asylum claims, with successful applicants being able to return to Italy.

One of the two centres, in Shengjin, was intended to register and screen asylum applications, with vulnerable applicants identified and returned to Italy. The second centre, in Gjadër, comprised three sections, with one for asylum seekers; one for migrants awaiting repatriation; and one for migrants undergoing criminal proceedings. Children, women, elderly and other vulnerable individuals were excluded from the scheme and would need to be processed in Italy.

Up to 36,000 asylum seekers would be transferred from Italy to Albania each year under the scheme. The centres would operate under Italian jurisdiction, with the Italian authorities responsible for processing claims.

Implementation of the agreement was suspended following a ruling by the Civil Court of Rome in October 2024. The Associated Press reported in March 2025 that the centres “have remained substantially inactive since their opening”.

After suspending plans to use the Albanian centres to process asylum seekers, the Italian government repurposed part of the Gjadër centre as a repatriation centre for unauthorised migrants awaiting removal. According to a report in August 2025, the centres held “a few dozen people”. A report in late June 2026 said that it had held approximately 620 people since being repurposed.

The Italy-Albania agreement is due to expire in 2029. In May 2026, Albania’s foreign minister said that Albania would not be extending the agreement beyond this, with Albania hoping to be an EU member states by 2029. However, Albania’s Prime Minister then said that this was not the case, and that Albania was happy to maintain the agreement as long as Italy wanted it.

3.3 Denmark to Rwanda

Denmark passed legislation in June 2021 allowing for asylum seekers to be sent to countries outside Europe for the processing of their asylum claims. If their asylum claim was granted, they would then stay in that third country rather than be granted asylum status in Denmark.

Denmark signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Rwanda on Cooperation Regarding Asylum and Migration Issues in April 2021. The document has been described as non-binding and “not provid[ing] for the transfer of asylum seekers from Denmark to Rwanda”. However, the agreement was viewed as a possible “precursor” to a subsequent transfer agreement. 

In 2022, Denmark and Rwanda released a joint statement (PDF) saying that the two countries were “jointly exploring the establishment of a program through which spontaneous asylum seekers arriving in Denmark may be transferred to Rwanda for consideration of their asylum applications and protection, and the option of settling in Rwanda”.

Following a change of government in Denmark at the end of 2022, it moved away from pursuing a bilateral deal with Rwanda in favour of an EU-wide agreement on asylum processing.

3.4 EU return regulation

On 1 June 2026, EU member governments and the European Parliament approved the draft text of an EU regulation on migrant returns. This would allow member states to transfer migrants, found to be staying illegally in their territory, to third (non-EU) countries where the third country has agreed with the EU member state to accept the migrants and has concluded an agreement with the member state to establish a “return hub”.  The return hubs could serve either as the final destination or as transfer centres facilitating onward return to the country of origin or another third country.

Any agreement between the EU and the third country would have to comply with international law and human rights standards and be notified to the European Commission and other EU member states before it could be implemented. The transfer of unaccompanied minors would not be permitted under the regulation.

The text was formally adopted by the Parliament on 17 June. It still needs to be approved by the Council before becoming law.

Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark and Greece are working together to jointly develop return hub facilities outside the EU. Representatives from their governments met to discuss these plans in March 2026. Finland’s interior minister said in March 2026 that the Finnish government had discussed similar plans with other Nordic countries. According to a report in June 2026, third countries being considered to host these hubs included Rwanda and Uzbekistan.

4. Further reading

For further reading on the offshoring of asylum processing by the UK, European and non-European countries see:

• Mixed Migration Centre, How offshore asylum processing and migration management went global in 2025, November 2025
• Migration Observatory, Q&A: The UK’s former policy to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, July 2024
• European Parliamentary Research Service, Extraterritorial processing of asylum claims, April 2024
• Migration Policy Institute, External Processing: A Tool to Expand Protection or Further Restrict Territorial Asylum?, February 2023
• Policy Exchange, Stopping the Small Boats: a “Plan B”, February 2022