Tory chair says Conservatives may consider Taliban deal to return Afghan migrants

(UNITED KINGDOM) The UK is weighing a returns deal with the Taliban to remove Afghan migrants who reached Britain via the Channel, after a day of charged statements that pushed an already heated migration debate into new territory. On 27 August 2025, Conservative Party chairman Kevin Hollinrake said the party would “potentially” consider an agreement with Afghanistan’s Taliban authorities to take back Afghans removed from the UK. He later warned such an approach would be “very expensive” and bring “very serious” human rights costs, while suggesting the prior Rwanda plan remained his preference.

The Labour government under Prime Minister Keir Starmer has not ruled out talks, saying “nothing is off the table,” though the UK does not recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan’s legitimate government.

Scale and context of arrivals

Afghans are now the largest single nationality arriving on small boats. In the 12 months to June 2025, they made up 15% of Channel arrivals, ahead of Eritreans, Iranians, and Syrians.

Reform UK has made the idea central to its “Operation Restoring Justice,” proposing mass removals, including to Afghanistan, and direct payments to secure returns. The Taliban, for its part, has stated it is ready to accept Afghan nationals deported from the UK, saying it would not take money to receive its own citizens, while welcoming aid to support people as they re‑settle.

Political stakes and major proposals

Reform UK, led by Nigel Farage, has pledged to deport up to 600,000 people over five years, including Afghans who arrived illegally. Key elements of its plan:

• Make all asylum claims inadmissible for those entering without permission.
• Detain new arrivals in repurposed military bases.
• Remove people either to their home countries or to third countries such as Rwanda or Albania.
• Set aside £2 billion from a £10 billion deportation budget to offer financial incentives to countries including Afghanistan and Eritrea.

Senior Reform UK figure Zia Yusuf argued it is “quite reasonable” for British taxpayers to pay regimes like the Taliban if that ensures removals proceed.

The Conservatives are leaving the door open to a returns deal with the Taliban but stress risks and high costs. Hollinrake’s caution, and some Tory references back to the Rwanda model, underline internal party debate. The Liberal Democrats labelled the idea a “Taliban tribute plan,” arguing UK money should not go to an authoritarian regime still accused of harsh repression.

The government’s public stance remains guarded:

• No formal recognition of the Taliban.
• No announced roadmap or signed returns agreement.
• The UK engages Afghanistan through a mission based in Qatar on a “limited and pragmatic” basis when in the national interest.

Germany has resumed deportations of convicted Afghan criminals after talks with the Taliban, but at a narrow scale compared with the proposals floated in Britain.

Reform UK’s wider platform would also:

• Withdraw the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
• Replace the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights limited to citizens and lawful residents.

This would remove many protections for people deemed irregular migrants, including those who fled the Taliban. Analysis by VisaVerge.com indicates political appetite for removals has grown across Europe, but the UK debate now goes further than most peers in speed and scale.

Legal and humanitarian constraints

The UK Home Office’s August 2025 country policy note is explicit about risks inside Afghanistan. Officials state that people who have a well‑founded fear of persecution from the Taliban generally cannot obtain state protection, and that internal relocation is usually not possible—especially for women.

The full guidance is set out in the Home Office’s Country Policy and Information Note:
Country Policy and Information Note: Fear of the Taliban, Afghanistan, August 2025.

Human rights groups warn that forced returns under Taliban rule could expose people to:

• Torture
• Arbitrary detention
• Execution

They say mass removals would likely face urgent court challenges in the UK.

The UK provides £151 million in annual aid to Afghanistan, routed through international agencies rather than directly to the Taliban. Reform UK’s team argues that direct payments would speed outcomes and deter crossings. The Taliban says it would not accept cash simply to take back citizens but would welcome aid for reintegration—such as housing and basic services.

For Afghans in or considering travel to the UK, stakes are immediate. Many who fled after 2021 include former public servants, journalists, teachers, and those linked to Western programs, along with families whose daughters stopped attending school under Taliban rules. Advocates warn returns could endanger these groups, with women and girls facing special harm because of strict limits on education and work. Home Office guidance mirrors these concerns, noting the low chance that internal relocation would offer safety for women.

Operational and legal hurdles

Reform UK’s plan centers on fast detention and rapid removals:

1. New arrivals would be held in military sites instead of hotels.
2. Detainees would be put on removal flights to origin countries or third countries.
3. The party argues this would cut the pull factors driving Channel crossings.

Critics highlight major problems:

• High costs and scalability issues.
• Significant legal barriers under the Refugee Convention, ECHR, and domestic judicial review.
• Practical challenges verifying identity, obtaining travel documents, and proving returns would be safe.
• Likely immediate litigation and international pushback.

Hollinrake’s warning that a returns deal with the Taliban would be “very expensive” reflects how quickly costs mount when detention, flight charters, and post‑return monitoring are combined.

Even states that accept deportees usually do so under narrow criteria—for example, convicted criminals—rather than mass groups of asylum seekers.

Current politics and public sentiment

The politics are fast-moving. Reform UK has shown strong polling in some surveys, with support reported at 28% against Labour’s 21% in one snapshot, increasing pressure on ministers to show results on small boats.

Yet as of now:

• No signed agreement with the Taliban exists.
• No clear timetable or published implementation plan is available.
• Officials say they will explore returns agreements with multiple countries.
• Opponents insist removals to Afghanistan would breach international law and put lives at risk.

Key takeaways

Several facts stand out for those following policy closely:

• The idea of a UK–Taliban returns agreement is being actively discussed, but no formal deal exists.
• The Home Office’s guidance points to high risk for many Afghan returnees, particularly women.
• Reform UK proposes the broadest changes—fast detention, mass removals, and leaving the ECHR—while the Conservatives signal caution on cost and human rights.
• The Taliban says it will accept citizens and would welcome aid for reintegration, not direct payment for acceptance.

Immediate impacts and outlook

Afghans in the UK remain in limbo. Legal groups expect any removal effort to be tested in court. Community leaders report families fear knock‑on effects such as loss of work permission and longer waits for decisions.

With the Channel still drawing desperate crossings and the politics of deterrence sharpening, the debate over a returns deal with the Taliban is poised to shape the next phase of Britain’s asylum policy.