The 200 ‘bonkers’ asylum seeker contracts costing taxpayers more than £6.6bn exposed

A Sunday Express investigation has revealed that UK taxpayers have shelled out a staggering £6.6 billion over the past five years on asylum seeker and refugee support schemes. These programs, funded by both the government and local councils, include everything from trips to London Zoo and Arsenal’s Emirates Stadium to tennis lessons, sandwich deliveries, and even “friendship services” aimed at helping refugees integrate into British life.

The investigation, based on a dossier of information provided by Reform UK, uncovered 200 schemes that have cost billions since 2019. Critics have slammed the spending as “bonkers,” arguing that the money should have been used to improve public services and support local communities instead.

Among the most eye-catching expenditures are:

• £20,620 for sports coaches and equipment at the Wethersfield Asylum Accommodation site, offering activities like volleyball, tennis, and athletics four times a day, three days a week.
• £211,200 for “friendship services” in Bristol, where asylum seekers are paired with mentors to build confidence.
• £34,000 for sandwich deliveries to the Croydon Intake Unit, with options including chicken, egg and mayo, and vegan selections.
• £1.1 million on SIM cards for asylum seekers, each with at least 60GB of data—far exceeding the average UK monthly data usage of 8GB.
• £264,000 on bus passes for refugees in Bristol, a city already ranked as one of the UK’s top 10 for walkability.

The largest portion of the spending went toward accommodation, with billions spent on housing and an additional £2.4 million on furnishing these dwellings. Other costs included English language classes, research studies on asylum seekers’ needs, and even Easter holiday activities in Redditch and Bromsgrove.

Critics Slam “Bonkers” Spending
Rupert Lowe, MP for Great Yarmouth, described the spending as “lunacy,” arguing that it has caused divisions in local communities. “If someone landed from out of space, they’d say we’ve gone bonkers,” he said. “We’ve got these ridiculous contracts where we’re handing out money to groups who have never contributed to our society.”

Lowe also criticized the £1.1 million spent on English language classes, suggesting that asylum seekers should either learn English or pay for their own translators. “If you come to live in our country, you live by our laws, you live by our codes, and also, you speak our language,” he said.

Defenders Say Integration is Key
Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council, defended the spending, arguing that cutting these schemes would be a “false economy.” He highlighted the contributions refugees make to the UK, from working in the NHS to running businesses. “When they arrived here, they needed help to unlock their skills and potential,” he said. “We all need a bit of help sometimes.”

However, critics like Alp Mehmet of Migrant Watch UK called the spending a “scandalous waste of taxpayers’ money,” blaming both Conservative and Labour governments for failing to hold the civil service accountable. “The British people deserve better,” he said.

Record Asylum Applications
The revelations come as new figures show a record 108,138 people applied for asylum in the UK in 2024—the highest number since records began in 2001. Despite a drop in the number of asylum seekers allowed to stay, the cost of housing them in hotels has risen to £38 million, despite Labour’s pledge to end the use of hotels for this purpose.

Jonathan Eida of the TaxPayers’ Alliance called the schemes “bizarre,” urging councils to focus on local issues like potholes and rubbish collection instead. “Taxpayers expect councils to spend their hard-earned cash on fixing potholes and collecting bins, not bizarre befriending schemes for asylum seekers,” he said.

A Home Office spokesperson defended the spending, stating that the government is required by law to support destitute asylum seekers. However, they added that new controls have been introduced to ensure value for money in future contracts.

As the debate over asylum spending continues, one thing is clear: the £6.6 billion bill has sparked outrage among taxpayers and reignited calls for a more cost-effective approach to managing the UK’s asylum system.