Asylum flights to France continue weeks after one in, one out scheme ended
The Guardian reports the Home Office is still removing asylum seekers to France under the one in, one out arrangement, weeks after it ended.
According to The Guardian, the Home Office is still putting asylum seekers on planes to France several weeks after the "one in, one out" scheme came to an end. The newspaper says it has learned of the continuing removals, which appear to go beyond the official close of the arrangement.
The Guardian understands that the government continues to detain dozens of people in connection with the process. The paper also reports that one group was forcibly removed this week.
The scheme was announced in July 2025 by Emmanuel Macron, the French president, and Keir Starmer, who was prime minister at the time. It was designed to discourage people from crossing the English Channel in small boats from northern France. Under its terms, some asylum seekers who reached the UK were returned to France, while a similar number of people in northern France were brought to Britain through legal routes.
The Guardian's reporting does not make clear how many people have been removed since the scheme ended, or what legal basis the continuing transfers rest on. Those questions remain open.
Background
Small boat crossings of the Channel became one of the most visible and politically charged immigration issues in Britain over the past several years. Many of the people attempting the journey come from countries affected by conflict or persecution, and the crossings have repeatedly drawn attention to dangerous conditions at sea and to the role of smuggling networks. Successive UK governments have tried a range of responses, including enforcement measures, agreements with transit countries and changes to asylum rules.
Britain's departure from the European Union changed the framework for returning asylum seekers. Before Brexit, the Dublin arrangement allowed member states to send people back to the first EU country they had entered. After leaving, the UK lost access to that system, which encouraged ministers to look for bilateral agreements with individual countries.
Any country that receives someone under such an arrangement must still consider their claim in line with its obligations under international law, including the Refugee Convention. The UK also has duties under the European Convention on Human Rights, which are reflected in domestic law.
The "one in, one out" model was presented as a deterrent. People who crossed irregularly could be returned, while a comparable group could enter through a lawful route. Supporters argued that this would undercut the business model of smugglers. Critics questioned whether a swap of this kind could reduce crossings in practice, and raised concerns about fairness, conditions in detention and the right of individuals to have their claims properly heard. Pilot schemes like this often face legal challenges and shifting political priorities, and their formal endings can be less clear-cut than announcements suggest.
Why it matters
When a policy is described as finished but its effects continue, basic questions arise about how government decisions are communicated and carried out. People affected by a programme, along with their lawyers and the public, need to know what legal authority applies to any action taken. A gap between an announced end date and actual practice can affect individuals facing removal, who may have limited time to challenge a decision.
The story also touches the wider debate about asylum and deterrence. Governments across Europe have looked to agreements with neighbours to reduce irregular arrivals, and such arrangements are often judged by headline numbers. Whether the Channel scheme is seen as a working tool or a failed experiment will shape future cooperation with France and other partners. For the UK-France relationship, trust in how an agreement is implemented matters as much as the original framework.
Detention raises its own concerns. People held in detention are often vulnerable, and questions about conditions, access to legal advice and the length of time people are held can be lost in political argument. Accurate reporting and transparent answers from officials are central to understanding what is happening and whether the rules are being applied as intended.
What to watch
Watch for an official response from the Home Office on whether removals to France are continuing, and on what legal basis. Clarity on how many people are being detained and for how long would help readers gauge the scale of the issue. Legal challenges brought by lawyers or charities acting for those affected could test whether the transfers are lawful, and any court rulings could set the terms for future policy.
Statements from the French government and any changes to cooperation on the northern French coast will also be significant. Figures on small boat crossings in the coming weeks and months, and how ministers describe them, may show whether political pressure behind the scheme is shifting. Parliamentary questions and committee scrutiny could bring further detail into the public record.
Viewpoints
Commentary from our columns: three angles on this story.
The Rulebook law, policy and institutions
When a policy is announced as ended, the rules that governed it should end too, or be replaced by something written down and open to scrutiny. Reports that asylum seekers are still being placed on flights to France weeks after the scheme's close point to a gap between announcement and practice. When people's liberty and their right to remain are at stake, that gap matters a great deal.
Institutions depend on clear legal foundations. If removals continue, the central questions are which power is being used, what documentation exists and whether individuals have been told their options. Courts and parliamentary committees exist to answer exactly these questions. A pilot arrangement that was never fully set out in statute may be harder to defend once its official life is over.
There is also a point about consistency. Asylum decisions should follow published criteria rather than the mood of a particular moment. A scheme described one way in public and run another way in private undermines confidence in every decision made under it. Officials should be able to explain, plainly and promptly, what authority applies today. That is not a partisan demand. It is what the rule of law requires.
The Ground Level what it means for ordinary people
Behind the phrase "one in, one out" are individuals and families whose lives are suddenly put on hold. A person held in detention, or told they will be flown to France, may have little understanding of which rules apply to them. They may have friends in the UK, children in school or a legal case half finished. For them, the difference between a scheme that has ended and one that continues is not a technicality.
Local communities feel these changes too. Charities working with people in detention often learn of policy shifts after they have already begun. When the public is told one thing and sees another, trust erodes on all sides, including among neighbours trying to understand what is happening in their own areas.
What would help is simple. People affected should be told clearly what is happening and why, with access to legal advice before any removal. Families should know where to turn. The public deserves plain answers about how many people are involved. Ordinary people, both those seeking protection and those living alongside them, need a system they can understand rather than one that changes quietly.
The Skeptic open questions and weak points
The central claim is that removals are continuing after a scheme has ended, and it rests on reporting that The Guardian says it has learned. Strong stories deserve scrutiny, and the open questions here are significant. How many people have been sent back since the end date? What legal basis is being used? Has the government confirmed the continuation, denied it or said nothing? Until those answers are clear, readers should hold both the story and any official explanation at arm's length.
There is also a weak point in the assumption that a scheme has a clean ending. Pilot arrangements are often wound down in stages, with transitional cases running for months. That could be a legitimate explanation, or it could be a misreading of the policy. Without more detail, it is hard to tell.
The wider case for the scheme was always uncertain. Supporters said it would deter crossings. Whether it did, and whether any effect could be separated from other factors, has never been settled. A story about continuing flights should prompt the harder question of whether the policy worked at all, and whether that answer justifies the legal risk and the cost to public trust.