A recent Sunday Express investigation has revealed that the ongoing migrant crisis is costing every UK household £220 per year on asylum seeker support schemes. The expenditures include tennis lessons, zoo visits, sandwich deliveries, and even trips to Arsenal’s Emirates Stadium.
Critics have slammed these costs as wasteful spending, arguing that the money should be redirected to public services. However, refugee organizations maintain that these schemes help integrate migrants into British society, ultimately benefiting the economy.
What Are Taxpayers Paying For?
According to the investigation, taxpayer money has been spent on a range of support programs for asylum seekers, including:
Recreational Activities & “Befriending” Services
- Over £20,000 spent on sports coaches and equipment.
- Hundreds of thousands of pounds allocated to “befriending schemes”, where mentors help refugees build confidence.
- In Bristol, Hull, and Newham, each refugee is assigned a befriender to assist with social integration.
Food & Transport Support
- £50,000 spent on a sandwich delivery service, with weekly lunches costing £4.45 each—more than the average supermarket meal deal.
- £500,000 spent on bus passes in Bristol to support asylum seekers’ mobility.
Phone & Internet Support
- £1.1 million spent on SIM cards for asylum seekers, each requiring at least 60GB of data per month.
Housing Costs
- Accommodation remains the largest taxpayer burden, costing billions of pounds.
- £2,388,000 spent on furnishing asylum seeker residences.
Support for Unaccompanied Migrant Children
- Significant funding allocated to services and assessments for child asylum seekers.
Criticism Over “Bonkers” Spending
Suspended Reform MP Rupert Lowe has condemned the spending, claiming it is harming local communities.
“If someone landed from outer space, they’d say we’ve gone bonkers.”
Lowe argued that handing out money to individuals who have not contributed to British society is illogical.
“We’ve got these ridiculous contracts where we’re handing out money to groups who have never contributed to our society… Is that logic? I think it’s lunacy.”
Lowe also supported a “detain and deport” approach similar to Donald Trump’s policies, suggesting offshore processing on remote islands for illegal migrants.
Refugee Council Defends Support Programs
While critics argue the spending is excessive, Refugee Council CEO Enver Solomon believes cutting these programs would be a “false economy” that harms both migrants and taxpayers in the long run.
“I know refugees from all over the world who make amazing contributions to their communities and to our country. Many work in the NHS, run businesses, or contribute to the economy.”
Solomon emphasized that many asylum seekers eventually contribute to the economy, but need initial support for:
- Learning English
- Making social connections
- Finding work and housing
“We all need a bit of help sometimes.”
Government Response & Future Plans
With 108,138 asylum applications in 2024—the highest since 2001—the Home Office has acknowledged the financial strain on taxpayers.
A Home Office spokesman stated:
“The government is required by law to provide support to asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute. However, we are determined to ensure value for money and minimize non-essential spending.”
The government plans to:
- Reduce asylum accommodation costs by ending the use of hotels.
- Implement stricter spending controls to prevent excessive expenditures.
- Speed up asylum processing to reduce the backlog and associated costs.
The revelation that every UK household is paying £220 per year to fund asylum support programs has sparked a heated debate. While critics call for spending cuts, arguing the money should be used for public services, refugee advocates warn that eliminating these programs could lead to greater social and economic issues.
As the UK government faces increasing pressure to reduce costs and reform its asylum system, the challenge remains—how can Britain balance compassion with financial responsibility?
