‘One in, one out’ scheme costs £56,000 per migrant, home secretary says.

The United Kingdom’s Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, has revealed that the government’s controversial "one in, one out" scheme, designed to return migrants who cross the Channel back to France, incurs an average cost of £56,000 per individual. This figure, disclosed by Ms Mahmood during her engagement with Members of Parliament, is notably higher than the Home Office’s own estimated average cost for enforced migrant returns, which stands at £48,800. The revelation immediately sparked renewed debate over the policy’s efficacy, financial prudence, and humanitarian implications.

The "one in, one out" arrangement is a bilateral agreement between the UK and France. Under its terms, the UK is permitted to return a specific number of individuals who arrive on its shores via small boats from France, in exchange for agreeing to accept an equivalent number of people from France who are deemed to have legitimate claims for asylum or entry into Britain. The scheme, which officially commenced in August 2025, aims to create a disincentive for dangerous Channel crossings by demonstrating that such journeys will not automatically lead to successful entry into the UK.

Home Secretary Mahmood, a prominent figure in the government’s efforts to tackle irregular migration, acknowledged to MPs that the policy has been "difficult" to scale up since its inception. She stated that the numbers of individuals processed under the scheme remain "relatively small" despite the significant per-person cost. As of her statement, approximately 1,400 individuals had been deported under the scheme since its launch in August of the previous year. This figure represents the total number of migrants successfully returned to France, with a corresponding number of legitimate asylum seekers having been accepted by the UK from France.

When pressed by Conservative MP Robbie Moore on whether she considered the scheme a success, Mahmood offered a nuanced response. She affirmed that, "on its own terms," the scheme had proven the "concept that such a deal is viable, that you can get returns off and up and running." However, she quickly added that it has "not been without its challenges, obviously." Her comments highlighted the operational complexities involved, particularly the difficulty in "scaling up very large numbers of removals every week into the French system," suggesting bureaucratic hurdles, logistical constraints, and potentially a lack of capacity within the French system to absorb larger numbers of returnees.

The substantial cost of £56,000 per person returned raises serious questions about the scheme’s value for money. This figure encompasses a wide array of expenses, including legal aid for individual cases, administrative processing, potential detention costs, transportation (which could involve charter flights and escort personnel), and the significant diplomatic and operational overheads associated with maintaining the bilateral agreement with France. Critics argue that such a high expenditure for a "relatively small" number of returns suggests an inefficient use of taxpayer money, especially when compared to the broader costs associated with processing asylum claims within the UK or investing in alternative strategies for international cooperation and safe routes. Ms Mahmood herself qualified the £56,000 figure as "about £56,000" and pledged to provide a confirmed figure to the committee, indicating that the precise financial breakdown might still be subject to further review.

Despite the operational difficulties and high costs, the government maintains that the scheme serves a crucial deterrent function. Ms Mahmood cited reports from the United Nations and other agencies indicating that some migrants are now reconsidering making the perilous journey across the Channel, specifically because they perceive a chance of being accepted under the "one in, one out" scheme if they claim asylum in France rather than attempting to reach the UK illegally. This suggests a potential, albeit perhaps limited, shift in migrant behaviour influenced by the policy’s existence, reinforcing the government’s narrative that such measures are essential to disrupt illegal routes and combat people-smuggling gangs.

The "one in, one out" agreement was initially set to conclude in June 2026 but has now been extended into October of the current year. This extension underscores the ongoing commitment from both the UK and French governments to the framework, even as its effectiveness and cost-efficiency continue to be scrutinised. The decision to prolong the agreement suggests that, despite its challenges, both nations see continued strategic value in its existence, possibly as a foundational element for future, broader cooperation on migration management.

Beyond this specific scheme, the broader context of small boat crossings reveals a dynamic and complex situation. So far this year, 17,425 people have arrived in the UK by small boat, marking a significant 44% decrease compared to the same period last year. This reduction is a key metric for the government’s immigration policy, which has prioritised "stopping the boats." The National Crime Agency (NCA) has attributed this decrease to a combination of factors, including intensified law enforcement efforts targeting organised crime groups facilitating the crossings, and disruptions to the supply chains for small boats, partly due to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. These disruptions make it harder for criminal gangs to acquire and deploy the vessels necessary for these dangerous journeys.

Small boat crossings have become the predominant method for individuals to be detected entering the UK illegally since 2020. Almost all those who undertake these journeys subsequently claim asylum, which, under international law, grants them the right to remain in the country while their application is processed. These arrivals constituted a significant 40% of all asylum applications between July 2025 and June 2026. The increasing danger of these crossings is also a grave concern, with boats carrying an average of 68 people in the period from September 2025 to September 2026 – a figure that has more than doubled since 2021. Experts warn that such overcrowding dramatically escalates the risks, contributing to the tragic statistic of at least 84 people dying while attempting to cross the Channel in 2024, according to the United Nations. Despite the high visibility and political focus on small boat arrivals, they represent approximately 5% of the total immigration into the UK from January to December 2025, providing important perspective on the overall scale of migration. The government has consistently pledged to "smash the gangs" behind these crossings, framing the issue as one of national security and organised crime.

An analysis of the demographics of small boat arrivals indicates a diverse range of nationalities. Between July 2025 and June 2026, people from Eritrea accounted for the largest proportion, at 18% of all arrivals. Other significant nationalities included Sudan, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Iran. Furthermore, the vulnerability of many individuals undertaking these journeys is starkly highlighted by Home Office figures from January to December 2025, which show that at least 2,335 people arriving by small boat were identified as potential victims of human trafficking or other forms of modern slavery. This underscores the complex humanitarian dimension of the crisis, often overshadowed by political rhetoric.

Beyond small boats, other forms of irregular migration persist. Between July 2025 and June 2026, 4,712 individuals were detected entering the UK without permission through alternative methods, such as hiding in vehicles, travelling on ferries, or through airports. This figure represented a 17% decrease compared to the previous year. Additionally, a significant, though unquantified, number of individuals arrive legally in the UK—for example, on work or study visas—and subsequently overstay their permitted limit, becoming irregular migrants.

The high cost and limited scale of the "one in, one out" scheme continue to draw criticism from opposition parties and human rights organisations, who argue that the funds could be better spent on accelerating asylum processing, establishing more safe and legal routes, or investing in international development to address root causes of migration. However, the government maintains that every measure to deter illegal crossings is vital for regaining control of the UK’s borders and disrupting the business model of criminal gangs. As the scheme continues to operate and its costs are further scrutinised, the debate over the most effective and humane approach to irregular migration is set to intensify.