The British government is working on a voluntary relocation plan for people who have been refused the right to stay in the UK but cannot be returned to their home country, The Times newspaper has reported. Under the new proposal, migrants choosing to be flown to Rwanda would receive up to 3,000 pounds (about 3,500 euros) as well as additional support.

It would be the first time migrants were paid to leave the UK without returning to their country of origin.

Different from Rwanda deportation plan

According to The Times, the plan is separate from the Rwanda deportation plan (Safety of Rwanda Bill and Treaty) currently being fought over in parliament.

The paper reports that the new scheme is an extension of the existing Home Office voluntary returns service, under which certain asylum seekers and people without permission to stay in the UK can apply for financial support to return to their home country.

In the last year 19,000 people have been "removed voluntarily from the UK," a Home Office spokesperson told The Times. "This is an important part of our efforts to tackle illegal migration."

"We are exploring voluntary relocations for those who have no right to be here, to Rwanda, who stand ready to accept people who wish to rebuild their lives and cannot stay in the UK," the spokesperson added. 

"This, in addition to our Safety of Rwanda Bill and Treaty which, when passed, will ensure people who come to the UK illegally are removed to Rwanda."

The government believes the new scheme can be brought in quickly, The Times reports, as it draws on the structures in the agreement already in place with Rwanda, as well as the existing processes for voluntary returns.

Those who choose to be relocated will receive support from the Rwandan authorities for housing and integration programs, according to the paper.

Attempt to 'keep cruel deal in the news'

Critics quickly attacked the plan, claiming the government was "resorting to paying people" to go to Rwanda because it had realized that the deportation scheme has no chance of succeeding.

The Safety of Rwanda Bill and Treaty continues to face major hurdles, with politicians at odds over perceived threats to the rule of law, risks to children and other vulnerable migrants, the high costs of implementation, and other provisions.

"Ministers should now explain what this new idea means for the scheme as it was originally conceived, and they should also make clear how many people they expect to send (to Rwanda) on this basis, and what the cost will be," said the opposition immigration spokesperson, Stephen Kinnock.

He added that the proposal seemed to be an attempt by the Home Secretary, James Cleverly, to find a way out of the Rwanda deportation policy, which he called "hare-brained."

Activists and asylum support groups were also critical of the new plan, as reported by The Times. The Refugee and Migrant Forum of Essex and London (RAMFEL) wrote on X: "Barely a week passes without some new proposal designed solely to keep this cruel deal in the news."

Also read: UK-Rwanda migrant deal: European Court reminds UK of 'legal obligation' to comply

Risk of smuggling, remigration

Meanwhile, there are concerns that migrants who are sent to third countries they do not know and with which they have no connections are more vulnerable to trafficking and exploitation.

A commentator on X likened the UK plan to a voluntary departure scheme for asylum seekers which operated in Israel between 2013 and 2018. Under the scheme, around 4,000 Eritrean and Sudanese asylum seekers were relocated from Israel to Rwanda and Uganda.

Upon arrival in Rwanda, however, the majority either left or were deported to neighboring Uganda. Without work or documents, they joined the migrant trail to Europe, traveling to North Africa and across the Mediterranean.

One man who managed to reach Greece and ended up in Switzerland told the BBC that he felt lucky compared with others who had been sent from Israel to Rwanda.

"I know at least 10 or more people who have lost their lives in Libya, been beheaded by Daesh [the Islamic state group], or drowned in the sea," he said.

Amnesty International warned at the time of the Israeli relocations to Rwanda and Uganda that the departures were not "voluntary", as the only alternatives available to the migrants were returning to persecution or indefinite detention.

Rwandan affairs analyst and former refugee Norman Ishimwe Sinamenye, the UN Refugee Agency, Human Rights Watch and many others also continue to argue that Rwanda, one of the world's poorest and most densely-populated countries, is not a safe place for migrants and refugees.

With dpa

Also read: British government pledges to push through Rwanda plan at all costs