People smugglers are still profiting from small boats. Can the UK fix the crisis?

People are trying to travel from northern France to the UK in small boats, often with help from organised smugglers. The crossings are dangerous, but demand remains high among people seeking safety. The article describes crowded conditions in the area known as the Jungle, where asylum seekers and smugglers gather.

One smuggler quickly dug a buried dinghy from a sand dune, assembled it and attached a motor. About 30 asylum seekers waited nearby. Amad said smugglers use “plan A, plan B and plan C”, allowing them to keep operating despite government efforts to stop them. Their business depends on people paying for passage.

The UK and France are increasing enforcement, but crossings continue. The article reports growing police violence and at least 225 deaths since 2018. Aid groups argue that safe, accessible routes are needed because enforcement alone has not removed the demand or made the journey safe.

An asylum seeker is a person who has asked another country for protection and is waiting for that claim to be decided. The article presents asylum seekers as people who have already fled war, persecution or extreme hardship. Their claims must still be assessed on their merits; requesting protection does not automatically guarantee permission to stay.

Amad, from Iraq, and Omar, from Yemen, were among people hoping to cross from northern France. Some people previously removed from the UK were also hoping to return. They faced poor living conditions in the Jungle and, according to aid groups, harassment and violence from French police.

They are trying to reach the UK because they believe it may offer safety and a chance to have their protection claims considered. The article says people will continue risking the Channel until safe, accessible routes are provided. It does not give each person’s individual reason for leaving home.

The article gives a confirmed minimum of 225 deaths during Channel crossings since 2018. That figure comes from the UN’s International Organization for Migration and shows the human cost of journeys made in small boats. It is the clearest scale figure provided for the danger.

The article describes a group of about 30 asylum seekers waiting near Boulogne-sur-Mer. Amad and others said they hoped to cross in the next few days. However, the report does not say how many people actually launched boats or arrived in the UK during the six days in question.

That missing arrival figure matters. The article provides evidence of strong demand, including claims that the Jungle was busier than ever, but it does not provide a six-day arrival total. It also notes that the “one in, one out” scheme moved approximately 1,500 people in both directions before ending.

The UK-France “one in, one out” arrangement linked irregular and legal movement across the Channel. One person arriving in the UK by small boat could be forcibly returned to France, while another asylum seeker was brought legally to the UK. It was intended to manage crossings and create a controlled alternative route.

The scheme moved approximately 1,500 people in both directions. Some people removed from the UK were hoping to return, showing that the arrangement did not settle every person’s situation. NGOs working in northern France were unsurprised when the programme ended and called for a broader response.

The British government concluded that the scheme was beset with problems and could not be effectively expanded. Its ending did not remove the underlying demand to reach the UK. Aid groups therefore used the decision to renew calls for safe routes rather than relying mainly on returns and border enforcement.

When governments increase barriers without creating safe legal routes, people may still try to travel because their need for protection remains. The journey can become more dangerous rather than disappearing. The article’s aid groups say enforcement has failed to remove the reasons people are attempting to reach the UK.

Utopia 56 estimated a 40% rise in police violence against migrants from April to August 2026 compared with the same period in 2025. The increase followed a UK agreement to pay France £660m over three years for “stop the boats” initiatives. At least 225 people have died crossing since 2018.

The article says people continue risking the Channel until safe, accessible routes exist. MSF and Care4Calais argue that legal pathways would reduce the smugglers’ role and save lives. The government has reopened a resettlement scheme, but the article says it may help only a few hundred refugees yearly.

A visa-to-travel scheme would offer asylum seekers a legal way to reach the UK and submit protection claims. That would remove the need to pay smugglers for dangerous boat journeys. The proposal comes from the PCS union and Care4Calais, which say it could save lives and weaken the smugglers’ business.

Under the plan, asylum claims would still be judged on their merits. People whose claims were rejected would be removed from the UK. This keeps the decision about protection separate from the travel route. The proposed mechanism is therefore legal entry for assessment, not automatic permission to remain.

Care4Calais says the scheme would be unlikely to stop irregular arrivals completely. Some people might not qualify, might not use the route, or could still seek another way to travel. The article says it could nevertheless dent smuggling more effectively than measures focused only on border security.

The international asylum system gives people fleeing serious danger a way to ask another country for protection. The country receiving the claim, through its responsible authorities, decides whether the person meets the relevant protection criteria. The article does not name a particular decision-making agency, but it says claims must be considered on their merits.

The proposed UK visa-to-travel plan illustrates the process. A person would travel legally, make an asylum claim, and have that claim assessed. Approval would depend on the merits of the case, rather than simply on having used a safe route. The plan would remove the need to pay smugglers before assessment.

If a claim is rejected, the person would be removed from the UK under the proposal. The article does not describe appeal procedures or every rule in the international system. It does make clear that safe travel and refugee recognition are separate decisions.