Asylum seekers still being sent to France under ‘one in one out’ weeks after scheme ended

The “one in, one out” scheme was a UK-France arrangement announced in July 2025. Some asylum seekers arriving in the UK by small boat were forcibly returned to France. At the same time, a similar number of asylum seekers in northern France were allowed to travel legally to the UK. The stated purpose was to make dangerous Channel crossings less attractive.

The scheme relied on exchange. A person arriving in the UK could be removed to France, while another person in France could receive a legal route into Britain. The arrangement therefore combined removals with limited legal admissions. It was promoted by Macron and Starmer as a way to deter small boats from northern France.

The scheme officially ended on 1 October. However, the Home Office continued processing and removing some people covered by the arrangement. The article reports that crossings continued, and critics questioned whether the policy had achieved its central aim.

The Home Office says removals continued because some people belonged to the scheme’s existing cohort. They were thought to have arrived in the UK by small boat before the arrangement ended on 1 October. Ending the deal stopped new operations, but it did not immediately cancel every return already being prepared.

Officials chartered a plane to France on a Wednesday for a group from that cohort. Another flight was scheduled for 17 November. Home Office sources said the remaining returns were continuing after the agreement itself had ended. Freedom of information data also showed that seven of 23 deportation flights linked to the scheme were cancelled between July and September.

Medical Justice said asylum seekers were still being held in detention centres while awaiting forced removal. Emma Ginn argued that detention and the threat of imminent return were causing severe harm, especially for vulnerable people who reported violence or abuse by smugglers in France. The policy therefore continued to affect people after its formal end.

The scheme’s full human scale is not stated in the article. The Home Office was still detaining dozens of people, while officials arranged flights for groups who had arrived before the scheme ended. The clearest operational figure is 23 deportation flights connected with the scheme between July and September.

Seven of those 23 flights were cancelled. That is almost one-third of the total, and more than twice the number of deportation flights to France cancelled during the first six months of 2026. The article does not provide the total number of people removed or the number brought legally to the UK, so the flights cannot be converted into a precise headcount.

The financial cost was at least £78m, according to evidence from Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood to Parliament’s cross-party home affairs committee. Some people were returned to France more than once, creating additional costs. The figures show a costly and administratively difficult policy, even before considering its disputed results.

People sent to France did not all find safety or stability there. The article reports that many asylum seekers were left homeless or abused by smugglers. Some were told they could be sent to other European Union countries they had crossed during their journeys. Conditions remained difficult for people waiting in northern France to try crossing again.

Two interviewed asylum seekers returned to the UK just days after the scheme ended. A Syrian man was initially detained again while officials searched for a safe third country. When none was found, he was released and his asylum claim was considered in the UK. An Iranian man said smugglers had tortured and beaten him in France, leaving him afraid to go outside.

At least seven people returned to Britain since 1 October, with several more reportedly waiting in northern France. Some people sent back to France were then returned there a second time. Others remained detained in Britain, facing the prospect of another forced removal, while one person was living in the Dunkirk camp known as the “Jungle.”

The scheme was intended to deter people from crossing the Channel in small boats. The article says it did not appear to achieve that purpose. Hundreds still gathered along the French coast, and people sent to France reportedly tried to return to the UK. Critics therefore argue that removals did not remove the reasons people were attempting the journey.

The available figures are mixed. Small-boat crossings were down by approximately 40% compared with the same period last year. However, irregular migration to Europe fell by a similar amount, making it difficult to link the reduction specifically to the UK-France policy. After three weeks with no crossings, 263 people crossed in three boats on Thursday, followed by 671 people in nine boats on Friday.

The continuing crossings and repeated attempts to return suggest that the policy did not provide a decisive deterrent. The article also reports people waiting in northern France for favourable weather. These developments raise questions about the scheme’s cost, humanitarian effects, and future usefulness.

The main alternative identified in the article is creating accessible safe routes for people to claim asylum in the UK. Maddie Harris of Humans for Rights Network argued that people should have a way to seek protection without crossing the Channel in small boats. The article does not list a wider set of specific route types.

The existing scheme itself included one limited legal pathway. While some people were forcibly returned from the UK, a similar number of asylum seekers in northern France were brought legally to Britain. The article presents this as part of the exchange, not as a broad alternative available to everyone seeking protection.

Safe routes matter because the current journey exposes people to danger. The article describes smugglers abusing asylum seekers, people becoming homeless, and people waiting in overcrowded camps in northern France. It also reports tear-gassing and beatings on beaches. A broader safe option could reduce dangerous crossings, though the article does not assess a detailed replacement policy.

An asylum claim is a request for protection from a country. The person asks its authorities to assess whether returning them would expose them to serious danger or persecution. If the authorities accept that protection is needed, the person may be allowed to remain under that country’s protection. The article refers to asylum claims being processed in the UK, but does not explain the full legal test.

A person who reaches a country can ask that country to assess the claim because the country now has access to the person and can examine their identity, evidence, and circumstances. This assessment is separate from the dangerous journey used to arrive. Reaching the country does not by itself guarantee a positive decision.

This matters in the article because people sent to France later returned to the UK and had their claims processed there. The Syrian man said he was released after officials could not find a safe third country. The Iranian man said abuse in France drove him to return. Their cases show why individual protection needs can remain unresolved after removal.