British broadcaster Nana Akua has strongly criticized the UK government’s spending on asylum seekers, questioning why taxpayers are covering the costs of repeated appeals for individuals who “shouldn’t be here.” Her comments come after a Sunday Express investigation revealed that the UK has spent a staggering £6.6 billion on asylum seeker and refugee support schemes over the past five years.
This has sparked debate over whether the current asylum system is financially sustainable, with critics arguing that taxpayers are unfairly burdened, while others defend the need for better legal assistance to prevent costly appeals.
£6.6 Billion Spent on Asylum Support Over Five Years
According to the Sunday Express, the £6.6 billion expenditure includes a wide range of support schemes, such as:
- Trips to the zoo
- Tennis lessons
- Friendship services
These programs were funded through 200 government and local council initiatives, all aimed at helping migrants integrate into British society. However, critics argue that such spending is unjustifiable when many British citizens struggle with the cost of living.
Debate Over the Cost of Asylum Appeals
A major point of contention is the cost of repeated asylum appeals. Dr. Krish Kandiah, founder of the Sanctuary Foundation, defended the need for better support for asylum seekers, telling GB News:
“A lot of people who apply for asylum aren’t given the support to actually apply properly. Most people appeal because they didn’t get the help they needed in the first place.”
However, Nana Akua was outraged at the suggestion of spending even more taxpayer money to improve legal assistance for asylum seekers. She argued:
“Give them more help at the taxpayer’s expense? Even more money spent?”
Dr. Kandiah countered that better legal assistance upfront could actually save money by reducing the number of appeals, which double costs and cause long delays.
Despite this, Nana Akua remained firm in her stance, stating:
“Why should someone who comes here illegally be given access to repeated appeals? If they want to appeal the decision, they should pay for it themselves.”
Government Spending on Asylum Research Scrutinized
The Home Office has also come under fire for spending £664,000 on research projects to “better understand” the needs of asylum seekers. This includes:
- £229,920 paid to communications firm M&C Saatchi
- £225,090 spent on studying the “lived experiences” of refugees
Critics, including MP Rupert Lowe, condemned these expenses as wasteful. He sarcastically remarked:
“If someone landed from outer space, they’d say we’ve gone bonkers.”
The UK’s asylum spending has become a highly controversial topic, with critics like Nana Akua questioning why taxpayers are footing the bill for legal appeals and support schemes. While some argue that better initial support could reduce long-term costs, others believe the system is too generous and that failed asylum seekers should cover their own legal expenses.
With public finances under pressure, the debate over asylum spending is likely to remain a key political issue, especially as the government faces increasing scrutiny over how taxpayer money is allocated.
